This website traces the historical development of prisoners as human subjects in various experiments and forms of research throughout America’s history. Interwoven throughout this analysis are philosophical questions surrounding the respect of personal autonomy and the necessity of informed consent. The questions of whether personal autonomy can be respected within a coercive environment or whether full, informed consent can be given within a vulnerable population has echoed through the medical community, prompting debate about the use of prisoners as human subjects in research. Allen Hornblum, author of the book Acres of Skin: Human Experiments at Holmesburg Prison writes “From the early years of this century, the use of prison inmates as raw material for medical experiments became an increasingly valuable component of American scientific research. Postwar American research grew rapidly, as prisoners became the backbone of a lucrative system” (Gostin, Vanchieri, and Pope 54).
Throughout the 20th century, this was a governing form of experimentation for biomedical research, evoking many concerns about the protection and respect for ones bodily integrity and autonomy. Due to the pervasiveness of their occurrence, I pondered how human experiments on this vulnerable population could go on for so long in the medical community, despite the rampant abuse and exploitation. Even though the Nuremberg Code in 1947, a list of research ethical guidelines created following the Nazi experiments established international precedence condemning the abuse of vulnerable populations for the sake medical curiosity, the exploitation continued. With many American scientists justifying their actions based on the utilitarian ethics of “for the greater good,” prisoners ended up being their guinea pigs. One writer in 1907 said, “the most curious misconception is that the aim of science is for the cure of disease—the saving of human life. Quite the contrary, the aim of science is the attainment of human knowledge at any sacrifice of human life” (Hornblum, "Acres of Skin" 77).
While it is important to be cognizant of the fact that the human experiments you will read occurred within a particular historical context, it is also crucial for us to realize that certain human abuses should always be unethical despite their historical contingency. The aim of this website is to unravel the events that occurred in the 20th century concerning experimentations in prison, while examining its interplay with philosophical questions surrounding autonomy, consent, coercion, and justice. It is the hope that after exploring this website and reading its different sections, one will gain a stronger understanding on the occurrence of prison research in the past and contemporary debate concerning its revival.
Jescinta Izevbigie
Throughout the 20th century, this was a governing form of experimentation for biomedical research, evoking many concerns about the protection and respect for ones bodily integrity and autonomy. Due to the pervasiveness of their occurrence, I pondered how human experiments on this vulnerable population could go on for so long in the medical community, despite the rampant abuse and exploitation. Even though the Nuremberg Code in 1947, a list of research ethical guidelines created following the Nazi experiments established international precedence condemning the abuse of vulnerable populations for the sake medical curiosity, the exploitation continued. With many American scientists justifying their actions based on the utilitarian ethics of “for the greater good,” prisoners ended up being their guinea pigs. One writer in 1907 said, “the most curious misconception is that the aim of science is for the cure of disease—the saving of human life. Quite the contrary, the aim of science is the attainment of human knowledge at any sacrifice of human life” (Hornblum, "Acres of Skin" 77).
While it is important to be cognizant of the fact that the human experiments you will read occurred within a particular historical context, it is also crucial for us to realize that certain human abuses should always be unethical despite their historical contingency. The aim of this website is to unravel the events that occurred in the 20th century concerning experimentations in prison, while examining its interplay with philosophical questions surrounding autonomy, consent, coercion, and justice. It is the hope that after exploring this website and reading its different sections, one will gain a stronger understanding on the occurrence of prison research in the past and contemporary debate concerning its revival.
Jescinta Izevbigie