Teaching About Systemic Ethical Misconduct Increases Awareness of Ethical Principles: A Replication and Extension of Grose-Fifer’s (2017) Tuskegee Role-Play Activity

• Published in: Teaching of psychology Vol. 49; no. 3; pp. 199 - 205
• Main Authors: Rose, Maya C., Brodsky, Jessica E., Che, Elizabeth S., Brooks, Patricia J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.07.2022; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Active Learning; Activism; Biomedicine; Children with disabilities; Civil Rights; Course Content; Diseases; Ethics; Homework; Human subjects; Introductory Courses; Knowledge Level; Laws; Medical Research; Moral Values; Outcomes of Education; Perspective Taking; Pretests Posttests; Public Health; Resistance (Psychology); Role Playing; Sexually Transmitted Diseases; Students; Students with Disabilities; Syphilis; Teaching Methods; Undergraduate Students; active learning; instructional methods; Willowbrook State School; ethics; Tuskegee syphilis study; role-play
• ISSN: 0098-6283; 1532-8023
• DOI: 10.1177/00986283211015981

Background: Introductory Psychology students rarely learn about unethical biomedical research outside the Tuskegee syphilis study, but these practices were widespread in U.S. public health research (e.g., at the Willowbrook State School researchers infected children with disabilities with hepatitis). Objectives: Replicate and extend Grose-Fifer’s research ethics activity by evaluating if an online homework and in-class role-play increased awareness of unethical research and abuses at Tuskegee (replication) and Willowbrook (extension) and subsequent changes in human subjects protections. Method: As homework, students read about the studies and wrote statements from perspectives of individuals involved. In class, students read their statements and discussed how outrage led to research conduct regulations. Online pre/posttests asked students why it was important to learn about both studies. Results: At posttest, students were more aware of unethical research at Willowbrook and that Tuskegee led to changes in human subjects protections. Students who completed the role-play activity were less likely to mention abuses for Tuskegee than students who did not participate. Conclusion: We were partially successful in replicating and extending Grose-Fifer. Teaching Implications: Research ethics instruction should draw attention to historical precedents and how public outrage and social activism led to increased protections for research participants.