Racism and Research: the Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study

Instructions:-

Racism and Research: the Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study

Order Description
Read Racism and Research: the Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study by Allan M. Brandt .Brandt_Racism[1].pdf . After reading, answer the questions from below in your own words, write 1-2 paragraphs for each question describing the events presented in the essay. You must use the format below to answer each question.
Rubric Content
Rubric Value
Cover sheet
10 points
Each question must be at least 1 paragraph
75 points
Work Cited/Bibliography page
15 points
Question 1:

a. What were the main discussion points of the essay?

b. What were the results and consequences of the study?

c. Would it be acceptable to replicate this study today? Why? or Why not?

d. Was this study ethical/unethical? Explain why.

Question 2:

Using one of the three major sociological perspectives presented in this course (Functional, Conflict, or Interactionist), explain the events described in the essay. For the sociological perspective you choose, apply the perspective to the article and draw one or more conclusions from your analysis.

Question 3:

Connect what you read in the essay to any material presented in this course – be sure to use at least 3-5 terms from the text/lecture.

Solution

Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study by Allan M. Brandt

Racism and Research: the Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study

The Main Discussion Points Of The Essay

The essay discusses the relationship between racism and medical opinion.  Brandt (1978) notes that the blacks who were viewed as primitive could not be assimilated into the white civilization, and blacks did not have any chances of survival in America. Blacks were predisposed to crime, diseases, and other vices that threatened to wipe out their population as much as the argument was from sociologists like Darwin, and it was supported by medical professionals as well as anthropologists, biologists, and ethnologists. Physicians who were responsible for analyzing the consequences of emancipation on the health of individuals admitted that freedom had harmed the blacks by causing physical, moral, and mental decay.

The essay also discusses the origin of the experiment as a result of Julius Rosen Wald did studies to ascertain the prevalence of syphilis among black people and even understand if it was possible for the sickness to be treated in the rural south. According to Brandt (1978), the study concluded that it was possible for a mass treatment to be successfully undertaken amongst the blacks in that rural area. The essay also discusses the selection of the research’s subjects. The subjects were black males between twenty-five and sixty years who were suffering from syphilis at the time of the study. These subjects were then taken through comprehensive physical scrutinizes like x-rays to check whether they suffered from neuro-syphilis.

The Results and Consequences of the Study

From the study, it was found out that syphilis at its latency stage had a high of significantly increasing the frequency at which cardiovascular diseases manifested. It was only sixteen percent of the subjects that did not show signs of morbidity while sixty-one percent did. The study also found out that syphilis reduced life expectancy by twenty percent. The effects of the study were that over thirty percent of the individuals who had been subjected to an autopsy had died as a direct consequence of advanced syphilis lesions that were either related to the nervous system or were cardiovascular (Brandt, 1978). The few subjects who were still living after the study were having complications of syphilis, and it was the most probable cause of their deaths.

It Would Not Be Acceptable To Replicate This Study Today

Today, individuals for use in researches are more empowered, and there are ethical criteria for selecting these individuals. Unlike in the study where people were duped into accepting to be used as research subjects for the promise that they would be treated freely, today, there are regulations that hold people accountable for their commitments. It would not, therefore, be possible today to lure people into accepting to be research subjects today are also consulted, and their consent sought before any study is conducted on them. Compensation is also a factor that characterizes researches, unlike in the study where there is no mention of the subjects being compensated.

This Study Was Unethical

 Brandt, (1978), reveals that the researchers had no intention of treating the infected men whom they used as their research sample. This is unethical because perhaps the ailing black men thought that by them being sampled in the study, they would be treated. The study also sought to test the possibility of a mass treatment being conducted on these men, yet this goal was not achieved as the ailing men were not treated, and this makes the study unethical. Testing the black men ailing from syphilis was also unethical. The men were subjected to spinal taps, which they were not informed about prior to the experiment, and as much as they complained about it, the researchers dismissed their claims arguing that the black men simply did not like spinal punctures.

The Sociological Perspective on Race and Racism Presented In the Textbook, That

Explains the Events Described In the Essay and How the Perspective Is Relevant To The

Article

The black men suffering from syphilis lived in rural areas. As Noel and Blauner argue that slavery in America started because of the growing agrarian revolution that called for human labor, the presence of these black men in the rural areas is supported by this claim (Saito, 2017). These black men lived in rural areas because it was where the plantations within which they were enslaved to work were located. The researchers also judged black men using their standards. They viewed the backs as primitive and unworthy of ethical treatments, and this explains why they did not seek the consent of the black subjects while conducting spine tastes on them. Duping the blacks that they would be treated for free also explains how negatively the researchers viewed the black men.

The researchers viewed the black men as incapable and worthy of free things such that luring them with free treatment would make them accept to be the research’s subjects (Saito, 2017). According to Saito (2017), the role of women minorities is also underreported in the study, as Blauner and Noel argue. The researchers do not include women subjects in their research either as subjects, nor do they give any analysis on the state of the black women with syphilis. The researchers only mentioned one female nurse whom they used to make follow-ups on the black men and convince them into accepting to be subjects for the study. As Blauner observes that the dominant group usually imposes minority status; the same is practical to the study as the black men were dominated over by the white men who enslaved them, making the blacks a minority group in America.

The white men enslaved the Africans in their quest for labor, and this initial contact status of the two groups continues to shape their relationship to date. Noel and Blauner also note that minority groups use some unique power to achieve their goals even in the face of opposition (Saito, 2017).  In this study, the Physicians who analyzed the blacks admitted that blacks had some freedom that made them mad and exposed them to extinction. 

The Limitations of the Sociological Perspective I Choose In Describing the Event

Noel and Blauner’s approach to slavery does not explain why syphilis was prevalent among the black men at the time of the study prompting the researchers to research the possibility of black men being indulged in a mass treatment for syphilis. Their approach does not also explain why the African female nurse accepted to collude with the researchers knowing that the researchers were duping the black men into being the research subjects for treatment of syphilis, was a lie. The approach also fails to explain why the researchers opted to study the black minority population as opposed to the white population or the other racial minorities in the rural areas at the time of the study. The sociological perspective does not explain the details of the impact of the research on the black minority populations and the entire society as a whole. The approach also fails to explain why it was impossible for blacks to be assimilated by the whites as well as the source of the freedom the blacks had and why freedom was dangerous for them.

References

Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Hastings center report, 21-29

Saito, N. T. (2017). Legal Perspectives on Race. Race in America: How a Pseudoscientific Concept Shaped Human Interaction (2 volumes), 313