Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics in science essay
Financial fraud essay
Financial statement fraud scheme
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics in science essay
Inspiring a 2002 feature film in which Leonardo DiCaprio portrays him, Frank William Abagnale, Jr. is arguably one of the most memorable fraudsters of our time. Abagnale assumed several different identities and forged checks worth millions of dollars. This type of fraud, known as financial fraud, is what many people first think of when the word “fraud” is mentioned. There are, however, other definitions of the word. One area of particular interest to us is the use of fraud in the field of science and research. This is an issue in both Allegra Goodman’s Intuition and in Carl Djerassi’s Cantor’s Dilemma. In both novels, the characters sort of skirt around the issue (at least at first) as this is a very taboo topic no matter the subject area. However, not all scientific fraud is created equal. Goodman seems to use a much more conventional approach by demonstrating outright fraud, while Djerassi, who is more privy to the real world that scientists face, gives us a more subtle view.
Intuition’s Cliff Bannaker and Cantor’s Dilemma’s Jeremiah “Jerry” Stafford were both expected to yield results in the experiments that they conducted. Pressures existed to complete and publish the results before other labs could do the same and, thus, be credited with the discovery. Because both scientists were working at smaller labs with fewer employees and a smaller budget, time was a very important factor in any decision that was made. Long, sleepless days and weeks went by for these men and I can only assume that this, coupled with the pressure they experienced from their superiors, contributed to the way that they dealt with problems that arose in the course of the experiments. Jerry snuck in to the laboratory to correct an er...
... middle of paper ...
...detrimental effects on cancer patients who are being treated with the supposed new working method. Not to mention the possible psychological pain the false results could give them in which they think there is a new miracle cure for their condition and they gain hope which is dashed when they realize that it does not actually work. Scientific fraud is unethical, as all fraud is, and should obviously not be committed by anyone. Even ex-con Frank Abagnale, Jr. was eventually caught and now runs a financial fraud consulting company and is a consultant for the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Cliff and Stafford both move on with their individual lives after the incident and, I am sure, did not commit fraud again (as is the case with Abignale). Only an idiot or a crazy person would try to commit the same crime for which they have already been caught a second time.
Upon analyzing his experiment, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, concludes that people will drive to great lengths to obey orders given by a higher authority. The experiment, which included ordinary people delivering “shocks” to an unknown subject, has raised many questions in the psychological world. Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California and one of Milgram’s colleagues, attacks Milgram’s ethics after he completes his experiment in her review. She deems Milgram as being unethical towards the subjects he uses for testing and claims that his experiment is irrelevant to obedience. In contrast, Ian Parker, a writer for New Yorker and Human Sciences, asserts Milgram’s experiments hold validity in the psychological world. While Baumrind focuses on Milgram’s ethics, Parker concentrates more on the reactions, both immediate and long-term, to his experiments.
When and why do you think the subject in the experiment began to "second guess" himself?
He enlisted forty participants and told them that they would be taking part in a study on the effects of punishment on learning. When they showed up to the testing site, they met with an experimenter and a confederate, Mr. Wallace, who they were led to believe was another participant in the study, just like them. As part of the experiment, it was determined that the participants would act as the “teacher” and Mr. Wallace would take on the role of the “learner”. The procedure the participants had to follow was straightforward; they were to read Mr. Wallace a list of paired words, and then through a series of multiple choice questions, test his memory. If he answered the question correctly, the participants moved on; however, if he got it incorrect, they were to administer him a shock, by pressing the indicated switches on the shock generator, with the shocks increasing by fifteen volts with each incorrect answer. As the shocks increase, Mr. Wallace begins to exhibit more and more signs of distress, asking for the study to end, and even making complaints of a heart condition. Despite his hesitance, the participants continued with the experiment because of the urging of the experimenter; if the participant remarked that they wanted to stop or check on the learner, the experimenter urged them by remarking “it is absolutely essential that you continue” or “you have no other choice; you must go on” (Kassin,
Pearsosn, H. (2013). Science and Intuition: Do both have a Place in Clinical Decision Making?
John B.Watson, R Rayner, (February, 1920), Journal of Experimental Psychology, Conditioned Emotional Reactions, Vol. lll, No. i.
Gardner, H. (2003). My way. In R. J. Sternberg, R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Psychologists defying the crowd: Stories of those who battled the establishment and won, (pp. 79-88).
These patients are desperate and are vulnerable, often consenting to research studies without fully understanding the potential outcome. Therefore, it is imperative to educate the patients, public, and regulatory agencies regarding the pros and cons of these therapies.
Potential grave consequences that can result from irresponsible, or criminal, medical experiments. While we must be vigilant to protect innocent victims from such experimentation we cannot let that stifle our duty to continue making advances in healthcare and improving the lives of patients.
Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience are the focus of Theodore Dalrymple and Ian Parker. Theodore Dalrymple is a British physician that composed his views of the Milgram experiment with “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” in the New Statesman in July 1999 (254). He distinguishes between blind obedience and blind disobedience stating that an extreme of either is not good, and that a healthy balance between the two is needed. On the other hand, Ian Parker is a British writer who wrote “Obedience” for an issue of Granta in the fall of 2000. He discusses the location of the experiment as a major factor and how the experiment progresses to prevent more outcomes. Dalrymple uses real-life events to convey his argument while Parker exemplifies logic from professors to state his point.
Though the research seems pretty sound in the ethical department, one could say that placebo controlled studies could be unethical in themselves. Accepting someone into a clinical trial gives him or her hope of improvement, but they may not ever get that chance. If they were placed in the control group, they would only receive a sugar pill that would have no health implications. Though part of many successful and effective experiments, it could be raised as an ethical issue.
This theory (Fine, 2004) states that when there is competition for resources negative feelings will arise. The boys proved this when the competitions for resources came up the tension built so fast and wild the researchers had to stop early. Therefore, Sherif may have been well known for his laboratory work, but he was even more comfortable outdoors. His experiment, that is sometimes forgotten today, leads to a theory that can still be seen as true today.
In conclusion, all three of these practices offer the opportunity for great medical advancement but struggle with ethical issues and possible risks as well as questions of their viablity as legitimate treatments to benefit medical problems.
Slater, Lauren. Opening Skinner's box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. Print.
In 1875 one of Wundt's former students Williams James (1842-1910) form a psychology laboratory in United States of America, at Harvard University. It is alleged that James didn't get the recognition he deserved because his laboratory was strictly for the teaching, rather than experiments and research like his former teacher and colleague- Wundt and G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924).
...nuing to profit from the substaining usage of animals in scientific laboratories, the tradtional method is difficult to dispose of. The method is kept for the currency but fails to produce major reliable success as those of the alternative methods. A statisict shown in Safer Medicines Trust states, "that nindy-two percent of drugs fail in clinical trials, having successfully passed through animal studies." These corportaions care more about the amount of money profited than the reliablitily of the results from animal testing.