As I began reading the four case studies, I had realized just how new I must be to anthropology and anthropological research. I had always believed anthropology was mostly about research on the history of homo-sapiens and our previous ancestors. The depth in research with regards to the regulations and ethics for modern humans was unfounded by me. As I go into thinking about how to consider the rules of anthropological research with virgin eyes and thoughts, I have to imagine a world without any regulations. Undoubtedly, researchers would push the limits of their research and more likely than less would perform experiments which would be looked upon as unethical against the human race. This world nevertheless could be filled with outstanding research and benefits to the human race, but at the cost of innocent people’s privacy, beliefs, and even possibly their lives. One may argue that anthropologists even without these rules and regulations would act morally correct and not push the limits of their research. However, it just doesn't seem possible as even now with present review boards for anthropology research that certain studies and experiments are to be unjustly performed innocently or knowingly as seen in case studies 1-3. Of course an inverse thought, which would be a world filled with the strictest of rules and regulations would just be bound to simple and non-constructive research. As seen in the fourth case study, even with current rules that try not to limit potential research, studies can become elongated and even limited to who can be interviewed or studied. This lawful world just seems too locked up for a type of research that involves humans who have free thought and independent actions which could never be assessed by only observational study. With these two ideas in mind, I find the issue and difficulty of finding the right balance for freedom of research and respect for human rights. Without doubt this is why review boards have been placed over anthropology researchers. It's hard if not impossible to create a set of common rules that will be considered perfect for research and ensure protection of all. However, it is possible that one set of rules can always be fairer than another. From my understanding with most forms or research, many studies done seem to be considered acceptable as long as consent of the studied party is agreed upon. This is a rule I believe should be enforced and is being forced now in review boards. With this rule, researchers are allowed to perform a vast amount of studies as long as they can provide sufficient reason for their research and gain the approved and understood consent of those being studied. As long as researchers can explain and get their point across for research, I believe most people and societies would agree to help and participate in benefiting research for the human race. To insure this rule is followed and that studied parties are informed of all parts of research, strong laws ...

1. As I began reading the four case studies, I had realized just how
new I must be to anthropology and
anthropological research. I had always believed anthropology
was mostly about research on the history of
homo-sapiens and our previous ancestors. The depth in research
with regards to the regulations and ethics for
modern humans was unfounded by me.
As I go into thinking about how to consider the rules of
anthropological research with virgin eyes and thoughts, I
have to imagine a world without any regulations. Undoubtedly,
researchers would push the limits of their
research and more likely than less would perform experiments
which would be looked upon as unethical against
the human race. This world nevertheless could be filled with
outstanding research and benefits to the human
race, but at the cost of innocent people’s privacy, beliefs,
and even possibly their lives. One may argue that
anthropologists even without these rules and regulations would
act morally correct and not push the limits of
their research. However, it just doesn't seem possible as even
now with present review boards for anthropology
research that certain studies and experiments are to be unjustly
performed innocently or knowingly as seen in
case studies 1-3.
Of course an inverse thought, which would be a world filled
with the strictest of rules and regulations would just
be bound to simple and non-constructive research. As seen in
the fourth case study, even with current rules that
try not to limit potential research, studies can become elongated
and even limited to who can be interviewed or

2. studied. This lawful world just seems too locked up for a type
of research that involves humans who have free
thought and independent actions which could never be assessed
by only observational study.
With these two ideas in mind, I find the issue and difficulty of
finding the right balance for freedom of research
and respect for human rights. Without doubt this is why review
boards have been placed over anthropology
researchers. It's hard if not impossible to create a set of
common rules that will be considered perfect for
research and ensure protection of all. However, it is possible
that one set of rules can always be fairer than
another.
From my understanding with most forms or research, many
studies done seem to be considered acceptable as
long as consent of the studied party is agreed upon. This is a
rule I believe should be enforced and is being
forced now in review boards. With this rule, researchers are
allowed to perform a vast amount of studies as long
as they can provide sufficient reason for their research and gain
the approved and understood consent of those
being studied. As long as researchers can explain and get their
point across for research, I believe most people
and societies would agree to help and participate in benefiting
research for the human race. To insure this rule is
followed and that studied parties are informed of all parts of
research, strong laws and fines should be placed to
insure that acts against the human race are always in
consideration. This allows the largest possible amount of
freedom researches could possibly have without putting human
respect at risk.
One rule however, which cannot be broken even with the fullest
of consent of a person or persons, is bringing

3. harm to any human. Harming or even doing experiments on
another human seems unethical in all senses and
breaks any human dignity a researcher may have. Although
there could be beneficial results to such research,
there just seems something innately immoral about doing harm
to another for the sake of research.
Also all researchers should propose there potential studies to
their designated review board. The review boards
for these researchers should also understand and as well help
promote such studies. If an administration would
like to be supported and respected, all review boards should
respond and cooperate with researchers to get their
studies completed. Although this could never be lawfully
enforced, if true anthropology was to be promoted it
would have to be by the fullest support of review boards. By
fullest support I am expecting review boards to
Letter D, Page 1
provide timely responses for approval of research, ways in
which researchers can get denied proposals
approved, and an unbiased review of the proposed research
being evaluated.
Although there are many other rules and concepts that can be
brought up about the subject, I feel fundamentally
these ideas are necessary for the freedom and respect of
research is done in a positive and beneficial way.
Letter D, Page 2

4. 10/12/12
OP-ED 2012
What would you do if someone were to infect you with a deadly
disease without your knowledge or permission
for them doing so? This was the case in the example of the
Guatemala Syphilis Experiment, which showed to us
the lack of common rules among research by the IRB and the
REB. It is clear that there needs to be a set rule of
guidelines for researchers in order to protect the
participant’s rights to life and privacy. In order to regulate
the common rules I agree 100% that researchers should have
their studies reviewed before and after their
studies are done. If researchers were to have complete freedom
to study the way they wanted to without review
there is guarantee that people rights to privacy would be
evoked. A simple way to know whether or not the
research being implemented is positive for society is to simply
ask the question if anyone’s rights are being
imposed on when conducting the experiment, if so it should not
be done.
In Case four we hear from a researcher that suggests, "But as
long as we have these kinds of boards that review
every proposal, it's going to be challenging to make significant
changes―. It’s hard to believe that because
of having ones research reviewed for imposing on human rights
would make it impossible to make progress. It
seems to me that we have made great discovery’s in the past
and continue to progress without having to
invade others privacy. If researches had the ability to conduct
any survey as they please it would probably end
up setting the research program back, because why would
people truest an experiment that hasn't been review?

5. It’s easy to see how from a researchers point of view their
experiment will be for the greater good no matter
what the sacrifice is being made, however, that’s why there
is a need for these type of boards who think
about the outcome for both parties, not willing to sacrifice
another’s happiness for the sake of research. For
example, in the case of the Yanomami “Neel decided to do
his research without first gaining Yanomami
permission. And he decided, on his own, what the reciprocal
benefits of his research would be―. Turns out that
the Yanomami felt taken advantage of and don’t even
acknowledge Neel in ever helping them at all. Neel
felt like he had the complete freedom to conduct his research
however he wanted, having boards to review these
studies before they are done prevents people from feeling taken
advantage of.
In conclusion, the IRB and REB have the right to make common
rules and should enforce them rightfully. If
researches had the complete freedom to conduct any study they
wanted it would actually set back the research
program, creating a bad image. The boards should continue the
requirement of review over all studies and
should not let any studies role out without prior review before
and after the study has been done. Sticking to the
“Belmont Report― is best, to ensure that people have their
privacy and justice when needed, which
hopefully there isn't going to be need of justice when the rules
are enforced.
Letter C, Page 1

6. Researching on the virus, syphilis, i find it disturbing what
people have done to actually spread this disease.
Paying prostitutes to have sex with prisoners and letting these
prisoners out with this disease is horrible. I feel
the research needs to go more into stopping the disease from
spreading rather than trying to make a cure.
There's diseases out there that no man can cure, my opinion is
STD's could be one of those diseases. Putting
humans at risk as a "test experiment" is beyond crossing human
rights. I am disgusted that something like this
could occur and some should be ashamed of this. To apologize
nearly 64 years later still leaves no remorse in
my mind. Guatemala families should definitely compensate for
such a crime. Research should look more into
stopping this horrible disease at a very minor expense.
Letter B, Page 1
The idea of a soul is a complex one. First of all, because there
is not one definition that people can consensually
agree on. Secondly, because what exactly a soul entails or what
its purpose it has is controversial. And lastly,
because no one can say for sure who has a soul: humans?
Animals? Trees? It could be thought that to have a
soul is to have duality of the body and mind, or to have an after
life, or maybe to have the capacity for sympathy.
Personally I believe it is to have the capacity for sympathy
because to have empathy or sympathy is to relate to
others, which is ultimately the basis of our mortality. In the
case of ethical medicinal practices, the role of a soul
and the ability to empathize and relate to others is key.
The amount of limitations that should be put medical

7. research for humans is ultimately a question of ethics. If
the above definition of a soul can be at least somewhat agreed
on, then it can also be said that humans must
have a soul and must have the ability to relate to others. So in
conducting medical research on humans, most
would think that the conductor would use his empathy and
overall knowledge of human mortality to make a
decision of what is ethically right.
However it is not that simple. Just as human relations are a
large part in our mortality, so are individual opinions
and diversity of opinion. In anthropological terms, diversity of
opinion can be seen as a manifestation of culture.
Culture categorizes us into groups based on many different
aspects, including environment, religion, language,
etc., and ultimately shapes our views and beliefs on virtually
everything. In this respect I think the topic of
beneficence cannot simply be reduced to ethics but more
narrowly, to a respect and acceptance for all cultures.
This concept is clearly demonstrate in the Yanomami case
study because the researchers' idea of what is
ethical (based on their western culture) is very different from
that of the Yanomami tribe. The researchers'
intentions were all good, in fact they both wanted to use their
research to benefit the Yanomami themselves, but
there is a large cultural gap which they ignored; therefore
counteracting their good intentions and offending the
very people they were trying to help.
Regretfully these sort of cultural and ethical boundaries
are often overlooked. So while one might think its
common sense to make the people you are researching your first
ethical priority, the vast cultural differences
don't make this such a black and white situation, thus making a
demand for such review boards. The main

8. principled argument that most people would agree with is that
no research should be done on humans without
the subjects consent, regardless of its potential revolutionary
benefits. On a similar note, it should also be in the
interest of the boards to measure the amount of risk involved
with the research to its potential benefits and make
sure they are consistent with each other.
All in all, I think it is in the researchers best interest to
make their subject their strongest ethical tie and therefore
would put my trust in them to make certain decisions with a
heightened sensitivity to cultural differences in the
gray areas of medical research. But boards should still have
knowledge of research being conducted as well as
they should under no circumstances allow research without the
subjects clear consent.
Letter A, Page 1