“In one of the bottles very small mosquito grubs were found, showing that the mosquitoes’ eggs had been hatched. The contents of this bottle, minus the dead bodies of the mosquitoes, was given to a native, Lutchman, on 25th at 8.0 a.m. on payment, after full explanation of the nature of the experiment. The contents of the other bottle was given to another native in a similar way. I think myself justified in making this experiment because of the vast importance a positive result would have and because I have a specific in quinine always at hand.”
-Ronald Ross, 1895.
Perhaps a bit of clarification is needed for that quote. It is from a letter that Ronald Ross, the man who proved that mosquitoes are the vector for malaria, wrote from what is now Andhra Pradesh to his mentor in England. Prior to his great discovery, Ross thought it possible that malaria was contracted when humans drank water which contained mosquito larvae. In order to test this hypothesis, Ross fed this “mosquito larvae water” to local Indians in Secunderabad to see if they would contract malaria. Ross argues that this was ethical because the subjects were given “full explanation” and he was prepared to supply them with quinine, a somewhat effective antidote to malaria at that time, immediately after they contracted the disease. Plus, Ross decided that the ends justified the means. Understanding how malaria was contracted was simply worth the illness of a few natives.
Here at CMF we are in the business of doing experiments on human subjects. I believe that we conduct our projects with the highest ethical standards and a portion of our projects are sanctioned by the Institutional Review Board's of major universities in the US, committees empowered by the U.S. Government to approve human research.
But then again, Ronald Ross surely thought he was doing enlightened work of the “highest ethical standards” (and of course one could reasonably argue that the US Government is no great moral authority). We can hope that researchers have truly become beacons of morality and that advances in anthropology and greater cultural exchange has led to less exploitation of the marginalized for the good of science. We can be optimistic and believe that by constantly reminding ourselves of Hitler’s use of human experimentation, we won’t do the same.
The subject for this blog came to me as I was considering the morality of doing a hypothetical experiment in which 100 villages are selected in a district, out of which the members of 50 villages will all be given cell phones, and the people of the other 50 villages will be given nothing. The researchers would survey these villages every year for three years to see just how effective cell phones are for raising income levels. This hypothetical is typical of the design for most CMF projects.
Often, researchers argue that because of limited resources in the world and to attain a greater understanding of how to eradicate poverty, this sort of study can be incredibly useful. The researcher might say, “If we could give cell phones to everyone in the world, we would, but that is not possible, so using these phones for research is an efficient use of a resource. Perhaps we will find that the government should subsidize cell phone purchases, and then we would be helping millions of people. And we have not done any harm to individuals, but only given away an asset.”
I essentially agree with this argument, but with one caveat. Perhaps some harm is done to those who did not receive the cell phones. Some economists have argued that we see our economic position in comparison to those around us, rather than in absolute terms. This is referred to as relative deprivation (the literature on whether this is an important phenomenon is inconclusive). The idea is that village members in Bihar do not compare their situations to Americans in Chicago suburbs, they compare themselves to those in their village and perhaps those in their block or district. Keeping up with the Sahus. Again, the argument can be made the government does this constantly, by administering programs where the benefits are not equally distributed. But at least in the governments case there is at least the concept that they are trying to do the most good for the community (maybe that is a stretch).
To be honest, this is not a complete hypothetical. On the research study I currently manage, I have personally seen village members/human subjects, who heard that an asset was being given away that they did not receive, express their anger and sense of deprivation.
This is not an argument that the research community should not conduct human subject randomized evaluations of this kind, but I do believe this is an issue that deserves thought. Plus, it is always good to consider whether you and I have not come so far in the last 100 years and may be more like Ronald Ross than we think.
-Ronald Ross, 1895.
Perhaps a bit of clarification is needed for that quote. It is from a letter that Ronald Ross, the man who proved that mosquitoes are the vector for malaria, wrote from what is now Andhra Pradesh to his mentor in England. Prior to his great discovery, Ross thought it possible that malaria was contracted when humans drank water which contained mosquito larvae. In order to test this hypothesis, Ross fed this “mosquito larvae water” to local Indians in Secunderabad to see if they would contract malaria. Ross argues that this was ethical because the subjects were given “full explanation” and he was prepared to supply them with quinine, a somewhat effective antidote to malaria at that time, immediately after they contracted the disease. Plus, Ross decided that the ends justified the means. Understanding how malaria was contracted was simply worth the illness of a few natives.
Here at CMF we are in the business of doing experiments on human subjects. I believe that we conduct our projects with the highest ethical standards and a portion of our projects are sanctioned by the Institutional Review Board's of major universities in the US, committees empowered by the U.S. Government to approve human research.
But then again, Ronald Ross surely thought he was doing enlightened work of the “highest ethical standards” (and of course one could reasonably argue that the US Government is no great moral authority). We can hope that researchers have truly become beacons of morality and that advances in anthropology and greater cultural exchange has led to less exploitation of the marginalized for the good of science. We can be optimistic and believe that by constantly reminding ourselves of Hitler’s use of human experimentation, we won’t do the same.
The subject for this blog came to me as I was considering the morality of doing a hypothetical experiment in which 100 villages are selected in a district, out of which the members of 50 villages will all be given cell phones, and the people of the other 50 villages will be given nothing. The researchers would survey these villages every year for three years to see just how effective cell phones are for raising income levels. This hypothetical is typical of the design for most CMF projects.
Often, researchers argue that because of limited resources in the world and to attain a greater understanding of how to eradicate poverty, this sort of study can be incredibly useful. The researcher might say, “If we could give cell phones to everyone in the world, we would, but that is not possible, so using these phones for research is an efficient use of a resource. Perhaps we will find that the government should subsidize cell phone purchases, and then we would be helping millions of people. And we have not done any harm to individuals, but only given away an asset.”
I essentially agree with this argument, but with one caveat. Perhaps some harm is done to those who did not receive the cell phones. Some economists have argued that we see our economic position in comparison to those around us, rather than in absolute terms. This is referred to as relative deprivation (the literature on whether this is an important phenomenon is inconclusive). The idea is that village members in Bihar do not compare their situations to Americans in Chicago suburbs, they compare themselves to those in their village and perhaps those in their block or district. Keeping up with the Sahus. Again, the argument can be made the government does this constantly, by administering programs where the benefits are not equally distributed. But at least in the governments case there is at least the concept that they are trying to do the most good for the community (maybe that is a stretch).
To be honest, this is not a complete hypothetical. On the research study I currently manage, I have personally seen village members/human subjects, who heard that an asset was being given away that they did not receive, express their anger and sense of deprivation.
This is not an argument that the research community should not conduct human subject randomized evaluations of this kind, but I do believe this is an issue that deserves thought. Plus, it is always good to consider whether you and I have not come so far in the last 100 years and may be more like Ronald Ross than we think.
0 comments:
Post a Comment