Executive Summary 3: Finances and Prioritizing Resource Allocation

Introduction

In this week’s discussion we studied the ethics involved with obtaining good data. In particular,
we discussed levels of consent, liability, and authority associated with obtaining useful
evidentiary data. How far is too far when setting up an experiment to yield favorable results? The
slippery slope lies in the extent of manipulation researchers can do in the name of the greater
good.

Scenario Summary

This week’s discussion was centered on the rise of HIV/AIDS and follows a prison medical
officer, Dr. Gray, from 1992 to 2015. In the midst of HIV/AIDS chaos, Dr. Gray notices that
HIV negative blacks are contracting HIV much slower than whites and Hispanics. After 6 years
of passive observation, she decides to utilize controlled experiments to see more results. She
splits the male prisoners into 3 groups: 1) HIV negative black inmates with HIV + black cell
mates, 2) HIV negative blacks with HIV + white cell mates, 3) HIV negative blacks with HIV +
blacks. Her results are mixed. Group 1 was expected, with 86% of black inmates becoming
infected over 10 years. Group 2 was startling, there are no new HIV positive inmates. Group 3
was also expected, 84% of black inmates become infected over 10 years.

Dr. Gray decides to conduct further experiments on Group 2, this time by injecting the inmates
with HIV + blood. Group 1a consists of the HIV negative blacks who are intentionally injected
with blood from their cell mate and monitored for a year. Group 2a is a follow up if the HIV
status is negative and the subjects were injected with blood from another HIV + white male.
Group 3a consists of the 75 negative blacks from Group 2 who got injected with HIV + blood.
Her findings left more to be desired. From Group 1a, 100% of the injected inmates remained
HIV negative. From Group 2a, 12% of the injected inmates became HIV +. From Group 3a, 90%
of the injected inmates became HIV +. She did a follow up experiment and found Group 1a’s
blood to cure 92% of Group 3a’s HIV.

Amidst all this, we were tasked with role-playing graduate students who are interning shortly
after Dr. Gray and her staff were attacked. The graduate students’ personas included a “closet”
white supremacist, “bleeding heart do-gooder”, “militant” black rights activist, financially
motivated entrepreneur, infectious disease researcher, and prison warden. My assigned role was
the entrepreneur with ulterior motives. As the graduate intern who has discovered these
experiment records, we had to decide if the results could be shared, and if so to whom. My
answers changed from the first experiment to the second. Initially, I was for disseminating the
information to the public and with researchers, but then in the second phase I contradicted
myself.

Lessons Learned

Observation 1: From an ethical standpoint, it’s more difficult than expected to prevent sharing
research findings with others, no matter how questionable.
Analysis 1: When I first read the scenario, I thought several people would staunchly be against
giving unethical research the light of day. As someone with financial motives, it made sense for
my character to be for sharing the experiments, for something in return. I assumed that the
characters such as the “militant” activist and infectious disease researcher would be against it,
taking a more moral stance. However, many people were for giving the victims and their families
due respect and then sharing the files. Not many were able to ethically state the experiments
results should be denied to researchers to whom this information would be groundbreaking.

Observation 2: It is incredibly difficult to ethically justify injecting people with HIV to obtain
better results.

Analysis 2: As a financially motivated entrepreneur who herself has questionable morals, even I
couldn’t justify this. Even those such as a “closet” white supremacist couldn’t back this up with a
strong argument. Everyone had to agree that it was abhorrent to inject HIV free people with HIV
+ blood, not just once, but multiple times, especially without informed consent.

Observation 3: The Nuremberg trials and public health code of experiments do not apply to
experiments from the past.

Analysis 3: Although Dr. Gray’s experiments are in violation of several codes of ethics and
laws, it’s hard to change anything from the past. If anything, not using the data seems like the
bigger violation, as the sacrifices will have gone in vain.