A scientist working on developing a new drug for a company that makes medicine. The research is taking longer than the scientist had thought it would and the company is putting pressure on the scientist to finish quickly.
The drug is finally ready to begin drug trails to test if the drug works on humans. Because the scientist wants to make sure the test goes well for the drug he removes all the most unhealthy potential patients from the sample group. The scientist then splits the remaining test subjects into two groups. One group will get the drug, the other will get a harmless sugar pill. Again in the interest of making sure the trial works out the scientist makes sure that the healthiest people in the sample are in the group that gets the real drug.
At the end of the test the two groups are compared, and the group that got the drug scored higher in several health measures. The company is happy with the scientist.
Did the scientist behave in an ethical manner?
im not sure how to answer it
Ah, really ?
Determining whether the scientist behaved ethically in this scenario involves considering a few key factors. Let's break it down step by step:
1. Pressure from the company: While it is understandable that the company wants the drug development process to be completed quickly, the pressure should not compromise the integrity of the science or the safety of the potential patients. The scientist should strive to balance the need for efficiency with the well-being of the subjects.
2. Selection of test subjects: Removing the most unhealthy potential patients from the sample group raises ethical concerns. It seems the scientist may be intentionally biasing the results by excluding individuals who may have a greater chance of experiencing adverse effects. This can lead to skewed outcomes and misrepresentation of the drug's actual effectiveness and safety profile.
3. Allocation of test subjects: By intentionally placing the healthiest individuals in the group receiving the real drug, the scientist is again introducing potential bias into the trial. This could potentially inflate the efficacy of the drug, as healthier individuals may naturally have better health outcomes regardless of the treatment. This biased allocation undermines the objectivity and integrity of the trial.
4. Comparative analysis of test groups: If the group that received the drug indeed scored higher in several health measures compared to the control group that received a sugar pill, it may suggest that the drug has positive effects. However, the ethical concerns associated with participant selection and allocation still stand.
Considering these factors, it is reasonable to argue that the scientist did not behave ethically in this scenario. Ethical conduct in scientific research requires maintaining scientific integrity, ensuring equal and unbiased distribution of participants, and prioritizing participant safety over expediency.