William Bragg once said, The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new

ways of thinking about them." Part of discovering new ways of thinking about science is through research. Research is a fundamental component in society as it helps us to understand why things are the way they are. Think about these six words for a minute: Regulation. Ethics. Benefits. Consequences. Rules. Subjects. What do all of these elements have in common? They are all factors that need to be considered carefully before conducting research. Guidelines, rules, and ethics are primary principles to conducting research responsibly, but other components such as benefits, consequences, and subjects, are also linked to the whole research process. With that being said, it is imperative that the Institutional Review Boards/Review Ethic Boards start enforcing a set of common rules regarding research more strictly because if they dont, everyone involved in any research project will be tremendously affected negatively. Its essential that researchers have the tools to get their work done, but at the same time, researchers should have freedom to some extent while conducting their research. There are different kinds of researchers: fieldwork researchers, ethical researchers, and unfortunately, unethical researchers. Having unlimited amounts of freedom while conducting research can result into the immoral treatment of the subjects. This type of research is usually conducted by the unethical researchers. These unethical researchers need to have a more limited amount of freedom. Why should the subjects be forced to deal with the immorality and inhumane treatment that they are receiving? When I first read that doctors infected soldiers, prostitutes, prisoners, and mental patients with syphilis and STDs and then treated them with only antibiotics without their informed consent, I was appalled and disgusted. We all think, Well, they were only trying to find out the effects that antibiotics has on these STDs, so its okay, right? Wrong. Because of this experiment, AT LEAST 83 deaths resulted. The words, at least shows us that there were probably more deaths than the number listed. Even for the subjects who didnt die, they still had to live with STDs. Living with STDs can decrease a persons self-esteem and cause stress. Some even feel that they dont belong in society because of the disease they have which can perceive them as monsters. The soldiers, prostitutes, prisoners, and mental patients should have had been informed before the research began and they should have had the choice to agree or decline their participation in the experiment. Even though the U.S. government formally apologized and announced that there was no statute of limitations for the violation of human rights in that medical research in October 2010, an apology wouldnt fix what the subjects would have to suffer for the rest of their lives. I dont understand how doctors can think about infecting people. Their main job is to save lives, not risk them. For fieldwork researchers and ethical researchers, they should be given a slightly larger amount of freedom while conducting research because they know how to treat their subjects with morality and respect. I dont think IRBs should shut down fieldwork researchers only because they have treated speaking with someone as equivalent to experimenting on them. I dont necessarily believe that speaking to people is equal to conducting experiments on them. Its ethical for the fieldwork researchers to get a persons consent before speaking to them, but the IRBs shouldnt have shut the fieldworker researchers down because of their prior beliefs. If anything, IRBs ought to shut down the researchers who are demoralizing their subjects and those who do not know how to get an informed consent from the subjects they want to test.

The amount of freedom that should be given should be dependent on the type of researcher and what their main goal is. It should also focus on the ethics and who they want to test, which leads me to talk about regulations. As we have read in some of the sources, there has been an abuse of research subjects. To prevent this from happening and to ensure, more generally that the research strives to promote the positive benefits for the larger society sponsoring it, researchers should have to give a presentation to the IRBs and go through an interview process and not just submit an application for IRBs evaluation. Laura Stark said, In focusing on written errors, board members are looking for signs that researchers are trustworthy, careful people who arent going to make a mistake in their studies (e.g., giving incorrect dosages or passing too much responsibility to students). Its all fine and dandy that board members are looking for the traits needed in a successful researcher, but if their evaluation is only based on paper, I think its somewhat necessary for IRBs to take it the next level with presentation and interviews from the applicant. The presentation and interview will allow IRBs to see a potential researchers motive, personality, strengths, and weaknesses which will ultimately determine if they are credible enough to do research. The current regulations that the government has implemented dealing with the abuse of research subjects are important for researchers to follow, but at the same time, they should try to push for more governmental regulation concerning research. I like the ethical principles listed in the background information- respect for persons, beneficence, and justice because it helps to protect the human subjects involved in research. If any ethical principle is not followed, researchers should have to face the consequences because they are putting their subjects in danger. Research has shown to be an integral part of science. Without it, there would be no new discoveries. However, researchers need to have their freedom constricted to a point where no harm will be done. Its not only about the freedom that researchers have, but its also about how their research findings will influence society in a positive way. Research. Its the key to our scientific future.