Lab Protocol 2: Bad Blood Case Study

Lab Protocol 2: Bad Blood Case Study

For this lab, you may work with a partner. If you do, please remember (per the syllabus) that both names should appear on the paper and both partners should submit the same paper.

1. Please review the following document: “Bad Blood: A Case Study of the Tuskegee Syphilis Project” by:  W. Fourtner, C.R. Fourtner and C.F. Herreid.  University of Buffalo, State University of New York.  Accessed by the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. PDF (myCourses). https://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/files/2-bad_blood.pdf
2. Discuss with a partner (take notes for your write up).
   1. Discuss questions on the last page of the PDF document.
      1. Carefully analyze this case. When you examine the paper and the appendix, what information appears to have been gained from this study?  That is, what kind of argument can be made for the benefits of the study?
      2. What do you believe were the motives for the people to become involved in the study, specifically: The subjects?  The PHS personnel?  The Tuskegee staff?  The Macon Country physicians?  Nurse Rivers?
      3. What kind of criticisms can you offer of this study?
      4. What were the factors underlying the cessation of the project?
      5. Could this project (or a similar one: AIDS or radiation effects) be conducted today?

3. CDC website on Tuskegee (http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm) and the additional link from HHS.gov.
   1. Timeline
   2. Presidential Apology
   3. Research Implications
   4. Nuremberg Code: https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf

Feel free to also review the other links…

1. Syphilis Information (if needed)
2. Case Definitions for Syphilis (if needed)
3. FAQ (if needed)

4. Write up for lab assignment
   1. Answer the questions as discussed with your partner (1-5 from above).
   2. Do you feel it was appropriate for President Clinton to issue his apology? Too much, not enough? Explain.
   3. Do you feel the changes made to improve research protocol (c: research implications, and d:  Nuremberg Code) would help future research?  Specifically, review your answer to #5 above.  Does this change your thoughts at all?