Gabrielle Cuebas
Dr. Koh ENG 101.2601
September 18, 2008
Essay 1, Final Draft
The Dangers of Difference
The Tuskegee syphilis study, which lasted for forty years after the Great Depression, is one of the most profound examples of unethical behavior in biomedical research. In Patricia King’s essay, “The Dangers of Difference”, not only does she describe the devastating events of this study, but she also poses the question of whether racial differences should ever be considered in biomedical research. King makes it clear that it is important not to make race a priority in conducting medical research, but we cannot reject the idea that there are considerable differences among races. The Tuskegee study has been over for about thirty years, but the impact of this study lingers, so she argues how we can increase minority participation in human research and improve the health of African Americans while avoiding the harms of research.African Americans, along with other minority groups, remain skeptical about being involved in human research, which does not help the advancement of medical studies to improve human health.
The Tuskegee study began with 399 males infected with the latest stage of syphilis. The series of experiments took place in Macon County, Alabama. Several hundred poverty-stricken, unaware African American men were used as human subjects in what the doctors called a “study in nature”, the study of the natural course of untreated syphilis. The doctors used this as their moral justification in conducting this research. The majority of the biologists participating in this study were racist white Americans. The subjects gave uninformed consent when they entered this “study in nature”. Many of them had no idea they even had the disease. The doctors told them that they had “bad blood” and offered them many services, such as free health care and medical attention, transportation to the clinic where the experimentation was taking place and free burial charges in case the subjects died during the experiments. The subjects were not only exploited, but when penicillin, the cure for syphilis, was discovered, they were denied treatment. In the end they were left to die.
King stated that “the goal of scientific study is to benefit a stigmatized group or person”. Clearly, the opposite occurred in the Tuskegee study. Public knowledge of this study raised so much skepticism, especially in the African American community, that it has posed a threat to doing comprehensive medical research due to a disproportionate number of participants because of the racial factors that were involved. Not only does this impede medical progression, but it also hinders the medical benefits to the public. King argues that race should not be a primary factor, if at all, in medical experimentations. She believes if there truly is a difference in the responses of blacks and whites to diseases, then the “priority should be given to exploring the possible social, cultural and environmental determinants of disease before targeting … biological differences between [them]”(King, 85).
An example of the negative impact on future medical studies is that of the AIDS epidemic. There was an imbalance between the amounts of African Americans infected by the HIV virus verses the amount of people that actually participated in the clinical trials. King, as well as supporters in the battle for AIDS, greatly encourages the increased participation of African Americans in the medical studies. Without proper representation, effective medical treatments cannot be developed. Although skepticism and fear has resulted from the Tuskegee study because of racist influences, the only true way to effectively conduct experiments is to put less emphasis on race because it only results in immediate discrimination against African American. The goal is to increase their participation, so we should analyze the other factors of people as a whole, regardless of ethnic status, because balance and equality is needed in order to conduct a proper study.
Sickle cell anemia has been studied among different races, and it was found that it is a “genetic condition that occurs with greater frequency among African Americans” (84). If, and when, other medical studies, which are conducted with a proportionate amount of human subjects, find a majority of one group to be more biologically reactive to a disease or condition, only then we can suggest that race may be a factor. Otherwise, it should be a last resort.
I agree that race should not be a dominant factor in analyzing a disease or condition in medical research because it is possible that the social or economic status of a person or group of people may affect their impact on the study. For example, in poor communities, they may not have the monetary or educational resources to access health care facilities and services, or even know what certain diseases and conditions are caused by. Equality is important. It is essential in biomedical research and in society because human rights should be respected. One’s race should not be important in research unless it results in a significant difference among the groups being studied.
Consequently, when it comes to the question of whether racial differences should be considered in biomedical research, it clearly raises a lot of controversial issues and even fears. The primary considerations should be limited to the social, cultural and environmental observations. When there is an imbalance in these conditions, only then should we remotely consider the biological or racial factors between human beings of different ethnic backgrounds because history evidently demonstrated the conflicts that arise when these racial observations are taken too seriously, and almost always taken advantage of.