Satisfy IRB Code & Rule Criteria The literature has identified the manner and form by which conduct of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the Milgram Study have violated the provisions of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies and standards. In an effort to clarify how the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the Milgram Study might have complied with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies, this analysis proceeds as follows. For the main deviations from IRB policies identified, alternative procedures and safeguards that do reflect compliance with IRB policies and standards are identified and discussed. A caveat is relevant: realistically, changes to the research protocols would, in effect, render the research useless. Unfortunately, the experimental design required deceit and obfuscation of the actual research procedures. In effect, and in each case, the research should never have been conducted.

Tuskegee Syphilis Study

The following sections of IRB were violated by the research. 46.103; 46.110; 46.111; 46.116; 46.1167, 46.118; 46.119. No reasonable or useful adaptations to the research have been suggested in the literature. I suggest that, instead of proposing how to alter this research, that good models of research using human subjects be reviewed. A foundation of the IRB is the provision of informed consent. Specifically, §46.109IRB calls for a review of the research that to ensure that the standards of informed consent are being met. The language regarding the information contained...

The IRB may require that information, in addition to that specifically mentioned in §46.116, be given to the subjects when in the IRB's judgment the information would meaningfully add to the protection of the rights and welfare of subjects.
In the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, research subjects were not fully informed, therefore, the subjects could not give consent as it is understood under the law. The information that was withheld from the subjects, which could be construed to meaningfully add to protection of their rights and welfare as subjects, included the following: (1) The true nature of the study was withheld from the subjects. To whit: the study was intended to compare the medical outcomes of black men suffering from syphilis to that of white men (Jones, 1993). (2) Although the doctors conducting the research knew that the subjects had syphilis, they did not identify the disease; moreover, the subjects were led to believe they were suffering from a "bad blood" condition rather than syphilis (Jones, 1993). (3) The subjects were not told that the disease they had was contagious; the result was that the disease did, in fact, spread to others (Jones, 1993). (4) The subjects were "treated" with aspirin, medication that is not effective against their disease (Jones, 1993). (5)…