Abstract
Understanding the historical foundations of ethics in human research are key to illuminating future human research and clinical trials. This paper gives an overview of the most remarkable unethical human research and how past misconducts helped develop ethical guidelines on human experimentation such as The Nuremberg Code 1947 following WWII. Unethical research in the field of neuroscience also proved to be incredibly distressing. Participants were often left with life-long cognitive disabilities. This emphasizes the importance of implicating strict rules and ethical guidelines in neuroscience research that protect participants and respects their dignity. The experiments conducted by German Nazi in the concentration camps during WWII are probably the most inhumane and brutal ever conducted. The Nuremberg Code of 1947, one of the few positive outcomes of the Nazi experiments, is often considered the first document to set out ethical regulations of human research. It consists of numerous necessary criteria, to highlight a few, the subject must give informed consent, there must be a concrete scientific basis for the experiment, and the experiment should yield positive results that cannot be obtained in any other way. In the end, we must remember, the interest of the patient must always prevail over the interest of science or society.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Nardini C (2014) The ethics of clinical trials. Ecancermedicalscience 8:387
Glenn Forister J, Dennis Blessing J (2015) Introduction to research and medical literature for health professionals. Jones & Bartlett Learning, Burlington
NIH Clinical Center: Ethics in Clinical Research. Retrieved 24 August 2017. Available at https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/recruit/ethics.html
Illes J, Bird SJ (2006) Neuroethics: a modern context for ethics in neuroscience. Trends Neurosci 29(9):511–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2006.07.002
Silverman F (1988) The “monster” study. J Fluen Disord 13(3):225–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-730X(88)90049-6
Stanford Prison Experiment. Retrieved 24 August 2017. Available at https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html
Thomas SB, Quinn SC (1991) The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932 to 1972: implications for HIV education and AIDS risk education programs in the black community. Am J Public Health 81(11):1498–1505. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.81.11.1498
Brandt AM (1978) Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Hast Cent Rep 8(6):21–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3561468
Korda A The Nazi medical experiments. ADF Health [online]. Retrieved 24 August 2017. Available at: http://www.defence.gov.au/health/infocentre/journals/adfhj_apr06/adfhealth_7_1_33-37.html
The 30 most disturbing human experiments in history. Retrieved 24 August 2017. Available at http://www.bestpsychologydegrees.com/30-most-disturbing-human-experiments-in-history/
Strous RD, Edelman MC (2007) Eponyms and the Nazi era: time to remember and time for change. Isr Med Assoc J 9(3):207–214
Laud Humphreys and the Tearoom Sex Study. Retrieved 24 August 2017. Available at http://www.drjkoch.org/Intro/Readings/Humphreys.htm
Harris B (1979) Whatever happened to little Albert? Am Psychol 34(2):151–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.2.151
Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C, Barker C, Pistrang N, Sanchez-Vives MV (2006) A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS One 1(1):e39. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039
Schell BH (1994) The ominous shadow of the CIA has imprinted itself on the brain research community. J Calif Alliance Ment Ill 5(1):38–40
Wilson ST, Stanley B (2006) Ethical concerns in schizophrenia research: looking back and moving forward. Schizophr Bull 32(1):30–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbj023
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Algahtani, H., Bajunaid, M. & Shirah, B. Unethical human research in the field of neuroscience: a historical review. Neurol Sci 39, 829–834 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-018-3245-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-018-3245-1