Ethics in Research: Pros and Cons of Using Children, Prisoners, and Animals

Christina Bay

Northern Kentucky University

HSC 421-001

Kim Barber Foss

good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.” When discussing the topic of ethics and the concept

of moral behavior, it’s easy to perch ourselves on a high horse, look down our noses at previous actions

of unethical behavior and pronounce judgment against the perpetrators. When considering slavery, the

atrocities against Native Americans, the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan, and the holocaust

horrors, one can easily say that the behavior toward the victims was a travesty, and it was. The toll in

terms of loss of life and human dignity that occurred is unfathomable and inexcusable. Furthermore, in

today’s world of research and medical practice, we can easily judge the behavior of the Nazis

experimenting on Jewish victims to be unethical. We can deem the Public Health Service of the United

States immoral for allowing 399 African American men to be left untreated for syphilis to see what

happens. And we can assuredly decry the use of senile patients for research as incomprehensible.

However, according to Hurley et al. (2011), issues of ethics and responsible behavior in research and

healthcare have not always been reflective of the current, clear-cut conventions. They have evolved

over hundreds of years of human interaction. (p. 54). Now researchers and participants benefit from

the guidelines of the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report. Even so,

there remain gray areas regarding ethics and responsible conduct for clinical research, especially when

the participants are children, prisoners, or animals.

Given the ethical concerns surrounding studies on children, prisoners, and animals, why would

researchers want to delve into doing clinal trials on these groups? Let’s examine the pros and cons of

each, starting with children. First, studies on children provide essential information for proper

treatment and care of childhood or infant conditions. While children have similar bodily processes,

responses, and functions, they are not just miniature replicas of their adult counterparts. Therefore, it is

crucial to understand conditions and disease processes at a pediatric level to treat them properly.

Second, pharmacological effects and responses to medicine vary in children compared to adults, so
knowing which drugs are safe is imperative. For example, children and teenagers taking aspirin for viral

conditions can develop Reye’s syndrome, yet adults do not suffer from this same response. Finally,

clinical studies on children can improve the quality of future pediatric care, provided the risk of harm

does not outweigh the benefits. The cons of doing research on children include their inability to fully

understand and consent, the possibility of increased risk due to age and size, and being able to

determine ahead of the research if the benefits outweigh the risks.

I feel mixed about research on children. While studies on children do produce beneficial

treatments, children are such a vulnerable population and can easily be exploited in the name of

science. One such study that is often highlighted by opponents of child research is the behavior study

conducted on Little Albert by John B. Watson. Watson used negative reinforcement methods to

condition Little Albert to fear bunnies, a Santa Clause face, and a white rat when initially he showed no

fear. The experiment was later excoriated for its abuse of Little Albert. I believe research for

medications and treatments should be done on children because they provide long-term health

benefits. However, they must have the highest set of controls for the child’s projection.

Regarding research on prisoners, at first glance, the cons can seem to outweigh the pros.

Conducting research on prison populations has historically been fraught with ethical misconduct, such as

injecting them with cancer cells, exposing them to harmful topical products, and unnecessarily radiating

body parts. Therefore, any research done in prisons could easily be interpreted as immoral. The cons

against clinical trials on prisoners are easy to list. The first is susceptibility to exploitation. Christopher et

al. (2016) state that “prisoners have restricted social, healthcare, and economic freedoms. Thus, studies

that offer access to otherwise unavailable resources may seem to exploit inmates' circumstances.”

Second, like the idea of being exploited, is the chance of being coerced. Inmates who may be

threatened with negative consequences if they don’t participate would more likely be persuaded to
engage in a research study. A third concern or con of research on prisoners is that many suffer from

mental disabilities. With these limited cognitive capabilities, can they truly give informed consent,

understanding the risks versus benefits?

As highlighted above, clinical research on inmates is controversial. Nonetheless, there are

benefits to using prison populations for studies. One is that they are an accessible population with a

controlled living environment. To that extent, creating repeatable studies would be easier. A second is

that there would be government funding available for the study, and a third is that inmates would have

access to healthcare treatments that would otherwise be unavailable. This is especially important given

that the prisoners face many health issues and the aging population.

My opinion is that clinical trials on prisoners should absolutely be allowed. They are an available

population; they are being housed at taxpayers’ expense and can be used to contribute to society. With

that being said, I still believe that they have the right to decline to be involved in research; they are not

guinea pigs to be exploited surreptitiously with no regard for human life and human dignity. As with any

study, the Nuremberg guidelines and the Helsinki Declaration must be followed.

What about animal research? Is it ethical? The most significant pro to animal testing is its

invaluable contribution to the advancement of medicine, especially by developing treatments for

numerous diseases, cancer research, and cardiac care, to name a few. Without animal research,

scientists could not have developed the COVID-19 vaccine as quickly as they did. The second pro of

animal testing is that it precedes human testing, thus mitigating the danger of new drugs for humans.

Thirdly, the similarity of animal systems to humans makes them ideal testing subjects. While scientists

recognize the limitations of animal research, they are the closest match to the human system, so much

of the test results are transferrable to people.

be used for research purposes. However, I would not be able to personally conduct research on animals

if they showed obvious signs of pain and distress. I do have reservations about animal testing. Three

cons stand out to me. One is that undue pain can be inflicted on them, and animals are often killed in

the process; two, not all drugs that pass animal testing are safe for humans. A prime example is the drug

thalidomide which was given to pregnant women for nausea in the late 1950s and early 1960s. While it

passed animal testing, it was shown to cause congenital deformities when absorbed in utero. Not all

drugs tested end up on the market; therefore, the animal was sacrificed in vain.

Research and clinical trials are necessary for the advancement of medicine and science.

Vulnerable populations such as children, prisoners, and animals invoke considerable debate about the

ethics of such research. Clinical trials should be allowed if extreme care is taken to protect human

rights, utilize humane techniques, and follow the guidelines of the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki

Declaration.
 References

Christopher, P. P., Stein, M. D., Johnson, J. E., Rich, J. D., Friedmann, P. D., Clarke, J. G., & Lidz, C. W.

(2016, January). Exploitation of prisoners in clinical research: Perceptions of study participants.

PubMed Central (PMC). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4793400/

Hurley, W. L., Denegar, C. R., & Hertel, J. (2011). Research methods: A framework for evidence-based

clinical practice (1st ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Definition of ethic. Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted

online dictionary. Retrieved November 5, 2022,

from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic