Talk:Unethical human experimentation in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Medical Research on Children approved by ACS

Source: TV Report on German TV in 2002 Title: Kinder als Versuchskaninchen in Ney York (Children as Guinea Pigs in New York Time: ongoing Location: Incarnation Children's Centre Financed by Merck, Pfizer, Glaxo Smith Cline,

Children can even be kidnapped by the ACS without needing a judge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.130.236 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Scope/neutrality

It is totally non-neutral to have an article entitled "Human experimentation in the United States" only be about ethically controversial experiments. What about New Drug Applications? What about APA (?) standards for experimentation on human subjects? This article presents a laughably biased picture of research using people. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what is the problem. We have several sources discussing this specfic topic, so this is clearly notable as a subject for an article. Both the sources and the article are very clear about what are the limits of the topic. The conflict with the reality you just mentioned is covered by a seperate article, Human subject research. The APA code is found there, where it belongs. This is all very standard. I can't see what is the problem other than the subject itself being the United States. Putting the real bias aside, the subject of the article is no more bias than the same articles on North Korea, Japan and the Nazi regime. Maziotis (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: I have changed the tag, since what you seem to question is not the way in which the subject is treated but the topic of the article itself. Maziotis (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Calliopejen1 -- the standard term currently used in the medical/scientific community for research using people is "human subject research". To get a picture of all aspects of human subject research, readers can go there, and they are directed to this right at the top of the article so there is no confusion about what the topic of this article is. There is nothing wrong with having an article focusing on unethical/illegal/non-consensual research -- as Maziotis pointed out, there are currently Wikipedia articles called Nazi human experimentation, North Korean human experimentation, Japanese human experimentation, etc., which focus on unethical research done in those nations, without discussing all of the valid/ethical research they did -- why can we not use the same format for the U.S.? The title of this article simply keeps in line with the precedent set by these other articles, for which I haven't seen any complaints about "neutrality". I would have no problem with (and welcome) an article called Human subject research in the United States, which could describe the large body of ethical and beneficial research that modern scientists and medical practitioners have done. However the topic of this article is highly notable, with hundreds (thousands?) of reliable sources discussing it. I see no reason to not have an article focusing on it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jrtayloriv. I feel that a page entitled Human subject research in the United States would be an excellent idea. It could be a page where many could discuss the ethical aspects of human tests subjects. A page that is needed for such a controversy.Mesora54(talk) 02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, this clearly didn't stick. The subject "human experimentation" is obviously notable and well defined, and there is no reason why we shouldn't trace its history on American soil. This is a standard encyclopedic entry. I am going to remove the tag since there has been no follow up and the editor who raised the issue hasn't follow it either. If the article looks like a stain somewhere and it offends people, it is only because the sources allow it. Any issue with the way they are being used, we have to raise the issue here and fix that. For now, everything seems ok. Maziotis (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Another article

In January I wrote a draft of my own on that subject Human experimentation in the United States. Now I was planning on moving it here, but I see that a new and quite substantial article was written in February on the subject. I wonder how we could best integrate them. I see the approach here was to discuss the different types of experimentation by type; I tried to present a chronological overview (without distinguishing between the types of the experimentation much) but also discuss the legislators response to revealed scandals that followed given scandals (instead of having it all in the "Legal, academic and professional policy" as in the current article here).

One simple solution would be to simply move my article to yours as a new section - "Historical overview", let's say. I prefer a second solution: to have my article remain separate, but retitle it, perhaps name it "Human experimentation legislation in the United States." I have already merged the appropriate parts of the current legal section into it; in turn the article here would benefit from some content from my article, as it does cover some subjects which should be incorporated into your article: Elixir of Sulfanilamide case, thalidomide tragedy case (probably in the "Pathogens, disease, and biological warfare agents" section), Stanford prison experiment, Tearoom Trade (in the academic section), and some legislation issues.

PS. You can see my article here: [1].

What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As I see no comments (or objection), I will move my article to "Human subject research legislation in the United States." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed name change to Human subject research in the United States

You may be interested in my proposed rename proposal at Talk:Human_subject_research#Human_subject_research_vs_human_experimentation_.28NPOV_title.29. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Human subject research in the United States should focus on Human subject research (i.e. ethical, legal research) in the United States. As others and myself have mentioned in the discussion you linked to, the term "Human experimentation" is generally used to refer to medical/scientific experiments which violate human rights -- i.e. unethical or illegal experiments. I think the current name is most appropriate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A little forum necromancy, but...

As stated above, "Human Experimentation" is explicitly distinct from "Human Subject Research" in that it implies that it is unethical.

I'm guessing that discussions of ethical research in the US are scattered elsewhere across the wiki, in articles like Institutional Review Board which are unfortunately US-centric. As it is, though, I am reviving this suggestion on the explicit demand that not only the name of the article should change, but the content should as well, at least and until Human subject research in the United States exists as a parent article. Not all human subject research in the US is unethical, and that is the impression that this article gives. At the very least, Human subject research in the United States must not redirect here. SDY (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious Sources

Agreed with comments below, I have added "" tags to ESPECIALLY reference 9 - "counter punch" - this site seems completely illegitimate, and steeped in anti-water fluoidation wackery. - 69.196.182.211 (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I examined a few of the sources of some of the more odd claims and found them to be lacking. I feel that a survey of the cited sources is necessary.129.2.227.234 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide specifics. Which sources did you find to be "lacking", and why? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's one example: Counterpunch.org is a website (and associated magazine) with a clear, strong point of view, and it doesn't give its sources for its information about human experimentation. In a case like this, where people have an incentive not to believe the facts being presented, it is important to cite sources that don't seem to have an axe to grind. You want ones that are especially unimpeachable, and I don't think Counterpunch meets that standard. Mark Foskey (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Counterpunch meets the criteria for reliable sources, regardless of what you think about their point of view. Some people have strong opinions about the point of view pushed in the New York Times, which has a long record of lying and taking information out of context, and which has a strong axe to grind (for their shareholders and advertising clients). The New York Times doesn't cite their sources either. But that doesn't matter -- we are allowed to use them, and we're allowed to use publications who don't publish information solely for profit -- as long as they satisfy WP:RS. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about the validity of sources. This article said at one point "In 1945, as part of Operation Paperclip, the United States government recruited 1,600 Nazi scientists, many of whom—such as Sigmund Rascher – had performed horrific human experimentation in Nazi concentration camps."

While casually browsing I noticed Sigmund Rascher clearly states (quoting reliable sources) that he was working for Germany all through the war until he was executed there. I then made my revision 352288579, "Wording is misguiding... Sigmund Rascher was never recruited by USA." to correct this. Shortly afterwards (though I never noticed until now) it was reverted by Jrtayloriv with the text "Undid revision 352288579 by Krushia (talk) -- untrue, please see cited source."

So just now I took his advice and looked up the sources for both this article and the other one. The other article has several reliable historical sources, while the source for the claim on this article was "In The Name of Science" -- a theatrical conspiracy-lovers' tale based off things the author heard blowing in the wind (see reviews from Amazon and Powells). This got me a bit perplexed.

Now, another user managed to remove the claim, so this may all be water under the bridge, but I thought it best to bring up my confirmation that this article is getting many poor edits by certain people who use these hard-to-find, questionable books as sources to scare off good faith editors... and frankly, it is a waste of everyone's time. Krushia (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Random people writing reviews on Amazon are not reliable sources. The Powell's article you linked to (which I'm not sure is notable either) says Goliszek uses "dubious sources" and is "one-sided", but presents no evidence of this "one-sideness" and doesn't tell us which sources are "dubious". Nor does he cite any sources claiming that Goliszeks work is faulty. I guess we're just supposed to take "Farhad Manjoo"'s word on it ...
2. I checked to confirm about Rascher, and you're correct -- he was killed at Dachau, and Goliszek didn't say that he had been brought over as part of Operation Paperclip -- I misread, because Goliszek was talking about Rascher, while simultaneously talking about Paperclip scientists. This was a mistake on my part, not Goliszek's. Thanks for correcting it, and sorry for reverting your edit.

--Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed name change to Unethical Human Experimentation in the United States

If the article is about unethical experimentation, then it should say so in the title. Yes, "human subjects research" is the standard term used in the field, but it would be perfectly normal, especially when talking to someone outside the field, to say "If you're going to do human experimentation, you have to get informed consent."

It is not necessary to specify in the title that the experiments listed are only allegedly unethical; that can be made clear in the introduction. Mark Foskey (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a better name would be Nonconsensual human experimentation. In the community of experimentees I'm in contact with, that's the preferred phrase.Jeremystalked _talk 05:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support the initially proposed change. "Human Experimentation" is possibly jargon, and it should be absolutely clear to the reader that this is not representative of all human subject research. By the way, nonconsensual human experimentation is legal and considered ethical in the US under certain circumstances, most often experiments on methods used in trauma care (see here and an example trial), so "nonconsensual" does not automatically imply unethical. SDY (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have boldly made the change. This article must be very clear that it is solely about unethical behavior, because if it could be misunderstood to mean that all research is like this it catastrophically fails WP:NPOV. That "experimentation" implies unethical is a nuance that many will not understand, and some users of Wikipedia are not native English speakers or may simply be too young to know the difference. SDY (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the term "human experimentation" is the common terminology for the topic of this article, there is no room for confusion about what the article covers, due to the clear description of it in the lead sentence, and the hatnote at the top that points people to the human subject research page. "Unethical" is first of all, an opinion that not everyone agrees with, and should not be in the title. Second, the article is not just about unethical human experimentation, but also about illegal or non-consensual experiments. The term is also in line with other articles on Wikipedia, such as Nazi human experimentation, etc. I'm going to request that the page be moved back to the simpler, and more neutral title. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been stated very clearly that human experimentation implies unethical. This is an extreme nuance of word choice that will not be understood by many users of Wikipedia. I don't think this article should exist at all, since it's a POV fork of a non-existent article on testing involving human subjects, so maybe I should simply take an AfD route. You can't have it both ways. Either this is a narrow but neutral article about unethical behavior or a massively inappropriate article about research involving human subjects. SDY (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• While you might find the "nuance" extreme, it is the standard terminology. Second, there is no room for confusion, because the lead and the hatnote make it abundantly clear what the article covers, and where to go for information about legal, consensual, and ethical research.
• As far as you not thinking the article should exist, you can take it to AfD if you wish, but I'm not sure what you hope to gain from that. What's going to happen is that it's going to be pointed out that there are a wide array of reliable sources from academic publishers that have written on the topic, and thus the article's topic is notable enough to warrant an article. In short, the AfD nomination is going to fail, "Speedy keep". Why don't you dedicate your time to improving the article instead?
• The article is not a "POV-fork" of anything -- you can't have a POV fork of a non-existent article. Even if an article on Human subject research in the United States did exist, having a separate article on unethical, illegal, and/or non-consensual human experimentation is warranted because it is a completely separate topic, which has been covered extensively in reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Further research indicates that it is not the "standard terminology." See this discussion. The Nuremberg Code used it as a term for all research involving human subjects, ethical or not. Even if it were standard terminology, it could clearly be misunderstood. It is obvious that this article is only theoretically neutral (and may still have problems) if it only covers unethical or allegedly unethical behavior, and it is apparent from the way it is written that none of this is given any doubt as to how unremittingly evil it is. This smacks of WP:GREATWRONGS, frankly.

My proposed solution is a combined article that will include this content with Human subject research legislation in the United States, tentatively to be located at Research involving human subjects in the United States, which I'm working on in sandbox form. A dedicated article to the evils of research is just not a good idea. Even if it is verifiable, it isn't neutral and is therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. SDY (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• First off, I took part in that conversation that you linked to, so I was aware of it. What I see is that most people seem to agree that the two topics are separate, and that the term "human experimentation" is a term that is commonly used in a negative sense. I also see several people agreeing that there should be two separate articles, with this article as sub-article for the human subject research article.
• You said that this article is "theoretically neutral". By that, I'm assuming that you mean that you agree that it meets WP:NPOV, but that you feel that it's somehow not "really" neutral. But WP:NPOV is how we determine whether an article is neutral -- that is, we claim that an article is not neutral when it violates WP:NPOV, not when an editor feels that it's not "really" neutral. There are numerous high-quality reliable sources which discuss this topic, and what they say has been neutrally reported here. Whether people think that it is "unremittingly evil" is irrelevant, just like whether people think what is written at Auschwitz is "unremittingly evil" is irrelevant. What's important is that we neutrally present what reliable sources have to say about it, which is what has been done here.
• I don't agree with your suggestion that we should include this content with Human subject research legislation in the United States, because the majority of this article is not about legislation, it's about the experiments (which have an enormous number of reliable sources discussing them). The article on legislation is linked to from the section in this article which discusses legislation. I don't think that this content should be included in a Human subject research in the United States article either, because most research in the U.S. is ethical, consensual, and legal, and presenting all of the content in an article about research in general would be giving undue weight to unethical, nonconsensual, and illegal experiments. They are two separate topics (which is why there are numerous books written exclusively about each of the individual topics), and should not be integrated as if they were a single topic.
• And as far as your sandbox article, you should make sure you keep WP:POVFORK in mind. However, if you are going to create an article on standard practices for human subject research in the United States, that would be very welcome. But I would title it Human subject research in the United States to keep it in line with standard terminology, and the titles of other Wikipedia articles. I'll also point out that if you do create such an article there is going to be no possible way to fit all of the information in this article and in Human subject research legislation in the United States into a general article about human subject research in the U.S, while maintaining a sensible article length, and adhering to WP:UNDUE. What's going to end up happening is that you're going to have to break off all of the unethical/illegal/non-consensual experiments into a sub-article of Human subject research in the United States. That is you're going to have to create an article on unethical/illegal/nonconsensual research and create a subsection in the human subject research article, where you summarize it per WP:SUMMARY. That is, you're going to end up with this article and Human subject research legislation in the United States as separate articles anyway. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I intend to create an actual neutral article and completely replace this raging diatribe. There is no need or expectation that we should have a separate article on "good" and "bad" as I stated below. Unethical is not a subset of ethical, and ethical is not a subset of ethical, it's the same thing, and it should have one article with a balanced approach, not a "pro" and "con" article. Wikipedia does not do advocacy. It reports the whole story, warts and wonders both. Also, I reject the idea that we should use the "Human Subject Research" and "Human Experimentation" split, since it has baggage and implications that are clear to one group and unclear to others. The Belmont Report uses the "Research involving" terminology for a reason. SDY (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Having a separate article for "good" and "bad" was rejected in that case, and it is explicitly rejected by policy. I feel very very strongly that this article is not neutral, and all I'm getting is arguments about verifiability. Yes, it's verifiable, but that wasn't my objection! SDY (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's not having separate articles for "good" vs. "bad". That's just the way you're trying to frame the issue to win an argument. The question is whether the general topic of Human subject research in the United States should be differentiated from the history of unethical, illegal, and non-consensual experiments (which are not the norm in medical research). According to the reliable sources which have been written specifically about the subject of this article, and NOT about human subject research in general, they are two separate topics. A wide array of reliable sources have identified this article's topic as worthy of standing alone as an object of analysis, separate from the broader history of human subject research in general. You trying to make it out like this is about "good and evil" is skewing the issue. The real issue at hand is whether we should write an encyclopedia article about a subject which is clearly identified in reliable sources as an important subject. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Research involving human subjects is always ethically problematic, and trying to separate "research" from "experimentation" is arbitrary. If this is in fact an article about unethical behavior, we should and must call it that. The distinction between research and experimentation is WP:JARGON and inconsistent jargon at that.

My impression reading this article is that it is trying to make a point, clearly linked to the thesis statement of "However, as of 2007, not a single U.S. government researcher had been prosecuted for human experimentation, and many of the victims of U.S. government experiments have not received compensation, or in many cases, even acknowledgment of what was done to them" Righting great wrongs is not what Wikipedia does, and this article is nothing but advocacy and protest as currently written, not impartial description of a subject, which would by necessity include both positive and negative aspects. SDY (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Your opinions about the ethical ramifications of human subject research are not relevant. What is relevant is that reliable sources have identified this topic as worthy of study, in itself, and separate from human subject research in general.
• The term "limit point" is also jargon, but we have an article on it, because that's the term that reliable sources use for it. And WP:JARGON is an essay not policy, so that's irrelevant too.
• Righting great wrongs is not what Wikipedia does -- Nor is anyone implying that it should be. I don't know why you keep bringing this up.
• and this article is nothing but advocacy and protest as currently written, not impartial description of a subject -- I'm not sure what you mean by this. Most of the article seems to be assertions of fact that are directly verifiable in reliable sources. What do you see as "advocacy and protest"? Advocating what and protesting what?
• which would by necessity include both positive and negative aspects. -- You're misunderstanding WP:NPOV which says absolutely nothing about "positive and negative aspects". What we should do is neutrally report what reliable sources have to say about it, regardless of whether we feel they are "positive" or "negative". Also, I'll point out that even if there were some basis in policy for this argument, that there is an entire section dedicated to positive aspects of this such as the legislation that was passed to prevent these sorts of experiments from recurring in the future. The laws discussed there are the reason that the vast majority of research today is ethical, consensual, and legal. I would say that this is a positive result of all of this.
• If there are any other things you'd like to add, or anything you have a problem with, I'd welcome any improvements you can offer, but I need more specific things than vague accusations of the article being a "raging diatribe" or "nothing but advocacy and protest". Try to identify specific problems, and then maybe we can work towards a solution. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've specifically identified an example of what I see as advocacy in the article. Other examples include editorial comments about anesthesia, scare quotes about "research" reports (not in original source), endless lists without any context, etc...
• By context, I mean that it does not discuss whether these ill-advised experiments were done out of ignorance (sad but understandable), lack of care for subjects (unfortunately common for obsessive researchers), or actual malice. In some of these cases, such as the Polyheme trial (one of the few recent items in the list), the trial met established professional ethical expectations, but this is left out.
• NPOV is driven by WP:WEIGHT, and a one-sided article that only discusses the point of view of "research as crime." The article doesn't even begin to explain why the activities here are different from ethical research.
• It only vaguely hints at the things that were done in response to these outrages, outside of the context of the individual experiments. As I'm reading through this I see a few of the things that you're talking about, and some of this is just bad writing and organization, which can be fixed. SDY (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've specifically identified an example of what I see as advocacy in the article. -- I don't see any examples of "advocacy", although I do see problems with WP:V and style that you've identified. I've fixed these, and would welcome any other suggestions for improvement you can offer.
• By context, I mean that it does not discuss whether these ill-advised experiments were done out of ignorance (sad but understandable), lack of care for subjects (unfortunately common for obsessive researchers), or actual malice. -- If you can find reliable sources that describe their motives, that would be fine to include.
• NPOV is driven by WP:WEIGHT, and a one-sided article that only discusses the point of view of "research as crime." -- Again, you are misundersanding WP:NPOV. If this were an article about human subject research in general, then it would be a total violation of WP:NPOV to cover mostly unethical, illegal, and nonconsensual research. However, in an article on unethical, nonconsensual, and illegal research, it is not a violation of WP:NPOV to have most of the discussion focusing on unethical, nonconsensual, or illegal research.
• It only vaguely hints at the things that were done in response to these outrages, outside of the context of the individual experiments. -- Again, there is an entire section dedicated to legislation that was passed as a result of these experiments. Much of this is outside the context of individual experiments, because generally these laws were passed as a result of many experiments, not individual ones. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The specific sentence I identified in the introduction should be obvious. The problem with this article is that it has a narrow focus on a specific subset of the topic. Whether that is appropriate we are discussing below. The rest of it is questions of terrible writing and dubious style, which we can fix if the article is retained. SDY (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Guatemalan Experiments

The statement about the U.S. deliberately infecting Guatemalans with various STDs — while it may be true — is a statement that is so extraordinary that a mere {{Citation needed}} tag is insufficient. It is too violative of Wikipedia’s prime directive: verifiablity. Also, it is up to you, the editor adding the statement, to come up with the verifiable reference/citation. It is not for others to do, not in such an extraordinary circumstance. The onus is on the editor originating the statement. You cannot place that burden on anyone who correctly points out that it runs afoul of WP:V.

For the originiating editor to merely place a {{Citation needed}} tag in such a circumstance is to circumvent the responsibility of providing verifiable references/citations himself, and to place any other editor into a 3RR situation if they do the right thing and remove the eggregiously unsourced statements. — SpikeToronto 17:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It is incorrect to label the reversion of an extraordinary, unsourced statement — a reversion accompanied by a clear edit summary and a notification on the editor’s talk page — “vandalism.” — SpikeToronto 17:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the unreferenced material per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness to the originating IP editor, this is now hitting the news. I just heard a brief report on it from CBC Newsworld. Only thing is, I am not sure how one goes about citing a news brief given by the anchor of a show. Would it be something like this:

“CBC News Now,” CBC News Network. October 2, 2010.

If so, we could reinstate the IP editor’s edit with this citation. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 00:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I already added it in yesterday. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Syphilis experiments in Guatemala It's good that I have a generated IP because you all blocked me for this edit, then you add it for yourself. Now I can say: I told you so. --93.82.8.84 (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No one said you were wrong. What you were told was that everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable, that everything must be accompanied by a verifiable reference/citation, and nothing more so than sentences that may prove controversial. So, we also told you so! ☺

To prevent you being blocked for something like this again, you should read the following: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:REFBEGIN. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you did say I was wrong. among others , only one quote as example: "bizarre claim" --93.82.8.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Make sure you attribute the right quotes to the right people. I did not say, “bizarre claim.” I even accepted that it may be true (see here). My only issue, which should be clear to anyone reading my comments, was that you have to satisfy WP:V. — SpikeToronto 18:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Article topic / NPOV

User:SDY claims that this article should not exist because it is about what he calls "bad" experiments, and that it should be integrated into the article on Human subject research in the United states, which covers U.S. human subject research in general. User:Jrtayloriv claims that the topic of this article (unethical, nonconsensual, and/or illegal medical experiments) is identified as the sole object of study in numerous reliable sources (separate from human research in general) and that editors' beliefs about whether the experiments listed here are "good vs. bad" are irrelevant.

Should there be an article on the history of what reliable sources have classified as unethical, non-consensual, and illegal medical experiments in the United States? 22:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• There are several books, journal articles, chapters of bioethics textbooks, etc. that have been written specifically on the topic of this article (unethical, nonconsensual, and/or illegal medical experiments). They clearly separate this topic from that of human subject research in the United States in general.
• There exist articles for several other nations that are similar to this one, such as Nazi human experimentation, North Korean human experimentation, Japanese human experimentation. They exist for the same reason that this one should exist -- numerous high-quality reliable sources have identified these topics as worthy of study in themselves.
• User:SDY has suggested that the contents of this article be integrated into Human subject research in the United States, which would discuss ALL research involving human subjects (both ethical/consensual/legal AND unethical/nonconsensual/illegal). I don't think that is a good idea for a variety of reasons. (1)This article is very long, and there would be no way to include it all in the more general article without having to break it off into a sub-article anyway. (2) I think that including all of the information in this article into the more general article would be giving undue weight to unethical/illegal/nonconsensual experiments, because the vast majority of human subject research in the United States is legal, ethical, and consensual. (3) Reliable sources clearly separate the two as separate topics, and thus they are worthy of having separate articles. What I propose is that this article should be a sub-article of that page, and should be summarized there per WP:SUMMARY. That is, there should be a very brief summary of this article in the general article on Human subject research in the United States, but that the large majority of that article should focus on standard practices in human subject research (which are nothing like the experiments depicted here).
• User:SDY has tried to frame the issue as whether we should have separate articles for "good" vs. "bad" experiments. But that's not what the real issue is. The real question is whether the general topic of Human subject research in the United States should be differentiated from the history of unethical, illegal, and non-consensual experiments (which are not the norm in medical research). According to the reliable sources which have been written specifically about the subject of this article, and NOT about human subject research in general, they are two separate topics. A wide array of reliable sources have identified this article's topic as worthy of standing alone as an object of analysis, separate from the broader history of human subject research in general. You trying to make it out like this is about "good and evil" is skewing the issue. The real issue at hand is whether we should write an encyclopedia article about a subject which is clearly identified in reliable sources as an important subject. Just because many of the experiments in this article are things that most people would consider "bad" (which is why most medical ethics textbooks generally use them as illustrations of "bad science") does not mean that it is "biased" to have an article on them. WP:NPOV does not say that articles can't be about "bad things". It says that we should neutrally report what reliable sources have to say about things, regardless of our moral/ethical views on them. This article neutrally reports what medical ethics texts, and histories of this topic have to say about it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• The topic of this article is a narrow, one-sided representation of research involving human subjects. It does not reflect the lessons that have been learned or the corrective actions that have been taken to try and fix the problems. That "bad research" is a separate topic from "normal research" is an unusual step to take. Our article on rocket engines does not skip the V2 (an important milestone in the history of the subject) just because it wasn't used for peaceful spaceflight. The rules and expectations of "normal" research have been defined by the actions of unethical researchers, most notably with the Nuremberg Code, but also with the Belmont Report as a response to the Tuskegee trial, and the history of ethics in research is inseparable from the atrocities and failures listed in this article. Not all research is an atrocity, and the distinction between "bad" and "normal" research is a very faint line which has moved over time as ethical standards have developed. SDY (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• The topic of this article is a narrow, one-sided representation of research involving human subjects. -- The article is not about research involving human subjects in general. It's about unethical, nonconsensual, and illegal research (commonly called "human experimentation" as opposed to "human subject research"), which is a subject that has been identified as worthy of study and separate from research in general by numerous reliable sources. The fact that you think this article is supposed to be about research in general, is probably the reason that you feel that it is one-sided. Research on human subjects in general should be covered in the article Human subject research in the United States. This article should be a sub-article of that one. The article are going to have to be broken up anyway -- there is no possible way you are going to be able to fit everything in this article into that one while maintaining balance and a sane article length.
• It does not reflect the lessons that have been learned or the corrective actions that have been taken to try and fix the problems. -- Actually, it does. There is a section on legislation that was passed as a result of such experiments (which furthermore links to an entire article on such legislation in a hatnote), and which prevents these types of experiments from taking place today. One thing I do think is missing is a discussion of some of the ethical (as opposed to legal) concepts that have arisen out of it; I would welcome the creation of such a section.
• That "bad research" is a separate topic from "normal research" is an unusual step to take. -- Again, that's your opinion, but that's not relevant. Several books, essays/articles, chapters in medical ethics texts, etc. etc. etc. have been written specifically on what you are calling "bad research". Reliable sources seem to discuss it as a topic in itself -- entire books have been written on it. Your opinions about whether they should have separated the two topics, is not relevant as far as Wikipedia article content is concerned though.
• Our article on rocket engines does not skip the V2 (an important milestone in the history of the subject) just because it wasn't used for peaceful spaceflight. -- I don't understand what you are saying here. Could you clarify what you were trying to argue?
• Not all research is an atrocity -- Nor has anyone claimed that it is.
• and the distinction between "bad" and "normal" research is a very faint line -- Again, this is your personal opinion, and not the opinion of reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• As we've discussed above, the term "human experimentation" has a vague meaning and is not specific or sufficient explanation to identify the content of this article. Labeling it as such is insufficient.
• The "reliable sources" you're talking about are books for popular reading, not academic or professional sources for people who actually have to deal with the reality of conducting research. Many of them would fail WP:MEDRS, for example. Look at articles in Science (journal) on the topic, and you'll see that this is a complicated line where ethical and unethical are often very uncertain, especially in vulnerable populations like children. My personal opinion on this is not entirely unbiased, given that I work with these realities frequently. The Polyheme trial mentioned in the article is a shining example of an ethically gray activity (listed here without qualification, of course).
• The point on the V2 is simple: we do not segregate information about "naughty" activities from the mainstream coverage of the topic. SDY (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• As we've discussed above, the term "human experimentation" has a vague meaning and is not specific or sufficient explanation to identify the content of this article. Labeling it as such is insufficient. -- Your opinion was that it was "vague" and "insufficient". Nowhere was there a consensus that this is the case.
• The "reliable sources" you're talking about are books for popular reading, not academic or professional sources for people who actually have to deal with the reality of conducting research. -- Actually there are several books from academic publishers here, including Oxford University, John Hopkins University, Springer, Routledge, etc, so your statement is manifestly untrue. And as far as those sources which are not academic sources, they all meet WP:RS, whatever your opinions about them. If you have questions about the relibility of a source, discuss it here, or take it to WP:RSN.
• Many of them would fail WP:MEDRS -- WP:MEDRS has no bearing here. This is an article about biomedical history, law, and ethics, not biomedical science.
• The point on the V2 is simple: we do not segregate information about "naughty" activities from the mainstream coverage of the topic. -- I still don't see the point. Nobody is "segregating" anything. This is an article on unethical, nonconsensual, and illegal medical research on human subjects (a topic which is clearly identified as an object of study in reliable sources), and it discusses just that. I don't think your V2 example is working very well -- could you provide specifics on what you feel is being "segregated"? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

With regard to this revert, I do not have any strong opinions. There are two possible solutions. If both subjects are the same, we keep the version of redirect I made. If the subjects are different, then we should write some content in the article Human_subject_research_in_the_United_States which would be different from "Human experimentation". What would you prefer? Biophys (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have a single article (under whatever title, maybe the linked page) that discusses all aspects of human research, unethical and ethical and banana-flavored, much like we have for the main Human Subject Research article (Human experimentation links there, rather than having a separate page). SDY (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've said several times -- I agree with you that there should be such an article, and I think it should be titled Human subject research in the United States. However, Human experimentation in the United States should be a sub-article of that article. There is no way that you are going to be able to integrate all of the content from this article into the main article while maintaining a sane article length, and not giving undue weight to unethical/nonconsensual/illegal experiments. So what we need to do is summarize the contents of this article in Human subject research in the United States per WP:SUMMARY, and link to this article from there. It's simply too large of a topic to mention within a more general human subject research article.

You still have not given any reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT for not covering this topic in it's own article. Please try to formulate a policy-based reason, instead of reasons based on your personal preferences, for why this article should not exist. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the equivalent of having an article "Evil things done by the Nazis." Sure, it may nominally neutrally cover only those evil things, but the article fails neutrality by design. SDY (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not at all equivalent to "evil things done by the Nazis". It is somewhat equivalent, however, to having an article called Nazi human experimentation. You keep trying to portray this page as nothing but "a list of evils"; but according to the reliable sources that this article is based on, and the books that have been written about the topic of this article, a more neutral way to describe it would be "an article about unethical, illegal, or nonconsensual medical experiments which caused controversy that led to important changes in modern medical practice, ethics, and legislation". Numerous reliable sources consider both cases of human experimentation to be topics worthy of study in themselves, and thus we should have an article for each of them. Again, please try to provide a policy-based reason why you don't think this article should exist, even though a wide array of reliable sources discuss this topic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not going to get into a lawyering competition, so don't bother with the "you can't make me" argument.

"Nazi human experimentation" is equally silly so long as it uses the emotionally loaded term "human experimentation." A neutral coverage of human subject research under the Nazis would obviously be a litany of abuses and horrors, and there is no reason to poison the well with a loaded title and restrict the article to covering "just the bad stuff" when proper WP:WEIGHT would make the article mostly about "bad stuff" anyway. Human subject research in the US is not a litany of horrors, though abuses have definitely taken place, and covering "only the bad stuff" in one article is simply not a good idea, especially when the vast majority is done with careful respect for ethics and human dignity. SDY (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by a "lawyering competition". If you mean that you won't provide policy-based reasons for removing a reliably sourced article, then there is really no reason to continue the discussion, because I really don't care about your personal opinions, and I doubt anyone else is going to either.

I also don't know what you mean by my "you can't make me" argument. Where did I say that? Or if you just made it up, what were you trying to say?

While you might think that having an article on unethical Nazi human experimentation is "silly", that's your personal opinion, and has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Numerous books have been written on the subject, and it is thus worthy of having it's own article. Please see WP:NOTABLE

You should really pay closer attention to what I'm saying if we're going to have a discussion. I've already said to you several times already that I think that the vast majority of human subject research in the United States is ethical, consensual, and legal, so I don't know why you're telling me that. It indicates to me that you're responding to things you haven't read. I've also told you several times that this is not an article on human subject research in the United States in general, but is about a particular type of human subject research that reliable sources consider to be unethical, illegal, or nonconsensual, and which they say led to modern HSR legislation and ethical norms. If this were an article on HSR research in general, then it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. But it's not. As long as you keep basing your arguments off the invalid premise that this is supposed to be a general article about human subject research in the United States, your conclusions are going to be invalid.

I've also said this several times, so please pay careful attention. Some topics such as United States war crimes are naturally going to be composed mostly of "bad things". But that doesn't mean that everything in United States war crimes should be integrated into Military history of the United States. The former is a topic that is the focus of a wide body of literature, considered separately from the topic of U.S. military history in general, and thus is worthy of having an article written about it. Complaints about "well it's all bad things, so it's not neutral" have no basis in policy. What's important is that the topic is widely considered to be important and worthy of consideration in itself by reliable sources. Please see WP:NOTABLE Plus, there is WP:LENGTH to consider (again, I've mentioned this to you repeatedly as well, so try to take it in). You couldn't possibly cover everything that reliable sources have to say about U.S. war crimes in an article on U.S. military history, while maintaining a reasonable article length -- so you break it off into a sub-article. You can't possibly cover everything that reliable sources have to say about unethical/nonconsensual human subject research in an article on U.S. human subject research in general, while maintaining a reasonable article length -- so you break it off into a sub-article.

Also, on a side note (although it's not really relevant to the discussion), general coverage of human subject research (i.e. including ALL medical research on humans) in Nazi Germany would actually mostly be benign experiments like those commonly performed in the U.S. The horrible experiments on concentration camp prisoners comprised a relatively small portion of all medical research in Germany. But the reason that we have an article on the unethical/nonconsensual experiments in Nazi Germany, is that numerous reliable sources single them out as a topic in themselves (PLEASE SEE WP:NOTABLE) and we couldn't possibly fit them all into an article along with all of the medical research that was done in Germany at the time. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:IAR for why I'm not interested in a "policy only" argument and why the opinions of editors do in fact matter. If you want policy problems, read WP:UNDUE, which states that articles have to include all relevant viewpoints, and I completely and utterly reject the idea that research involving humans can be neatly categorized into "ethical" human subject research and "unethical" human experimentation. It's all part of the same topic. Just because other authors cherry pick and limit the discussion to prove a point does not mean we should! Also, your claims that this is a useful and appropriate sub-article fall rather flat when there is no parent article to provide context. SDY (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not so distinct

Maybe a bit of random evidence, but someone just undid my redirect of Human subject research in the United States from Human Subject Research back here, because they apparently didn't understand the difference between Human Subject Research and Experimentation that Jrtayloriv is so adamant is obvious. SDY (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe that all Human subject research was conducted in the US? If so, your redirect is appropriate. If not, it is not. I thought it was so obvious. Sorry, I did not even look at the article edit history.Biophys (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The redirect was probably removed because it should be a redlink (since the article is definitely worthy of being created), not a redirect to Human subject research. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility is to create a sub-section about human subject research in the US within the article Human subject research, and then make a redirection to this subsection. Just in case, I am not going to revert whatever you people do.Biophys (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that Human subject research in the United States should be a sub-article of Human subject research, and that Human experimentation in the United States should be a sub-article of Human subject research in the United States. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain what this "sub-article" talk is about. Articles are generally supposed to stand on their own, even if there are other related articles. I'm also confused by the "merged into" language of 'HSR in the US', because it's never been anything other than a redirect. How can there "not be enough room" for this content in a page that has never exceeded 56 bytes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as sub-articles, this is common -- see WP:SUMMARY. For instance, look at the article United States. Obviously, you couldn't fit all of the information about the United States into a single article. So you compose articles like United States by summarizing sub-articles such as History of the United States, Geography of the United States, etc., rather than combining them all into a single article because of claims that "they're all about the United States, so they should be in the article United States." The argument being made here is similar. The topic of this article is a sub-topic of the more general topic of Human subject research in the United States, which in turn is a sub-topic of Human subject research. So we should create the article Human subject research in the United States which discusses common research practices, current techniques and processes, legal issues, AND briefly summarizes this article, per WP:SUMMARY.

As far as the length, what I'm saying is that this page is already 92 KB. An article on Human subject research in the United States should be created, because that too is a very important topic with a lot that has been written about it. But combining the two subjects together into a single article would be extremely long. If this article were very short (i.e. a few paragraphs), I'd say that it should be integrated into the article Human subject research in the United States as a sub-section (since that is the broader topic in which this one lies). But this article, at 92 KB, is already long enough that it probably warrants being broken up into sub-articles itself. See WP:LENGTH. The fact that nobody has taken the time to create the article Human subject research in the United States has no bearing on the notability of the topic of this article, just like someone could write an article on Socialism before the article Political theory had been written. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, topics need to be broken up -- but the existence of "Geography of the United States" is not a valid reason to leave "United States" in an WP:UNDUE state. Neutrality is evaluated at the level of each individual article, not across the whole encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. If the article United States focused exclusively on geography, then that would be giving undue weight to geography. But if the article Geography of the United States focused exclusively on geography, that would not be giving undue weight to geography. That would be staying on topic.

Likewise, in an article on the history of unethical medical experimentation in the United States, and legislation that arose out of it (i.e. the topic of this article), it is not a problem to focus on the history of unethical medical experimentation in the United States and legislation that arose out of it. On the other hand, in an article on Human subject research in the United States in general, it would be very much a problem of undue weight if most of the article focused only on unethical experiments, instead of common human subject research practices. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Rename - My vote may not specifically address the RfC, but a brief run through this article makes me think that some serious revision is needed here. I think the main problem is that the article is just terribly ambiguous. I mean, Human Experimentation in the United States? WTF does that mean? Technically that could include clinical drug trials no? And also, take the lead sentence - "There have been numerous human experiments performed in the United States". What the heck are "human experiments"? Experiments run by humans? I get the feeling this article was written by someone with lower school English writing skills. Step 1 in improving this article is probably renaming to something like "Non-consensual Human Experimentation in the United States". NickCT (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Terrible writing is part of the problem, but ultimately it's a question of whether the topic is an article unto itself or needs to be rolled into a more comprehensive article including other aspects of the topic. Writing issues can be addressed when and if the article remains. SDY (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Re SDY - I think my answer would be no. This topic don't deserve an article unto itself. Given that there is no Human experimentation in Russia or Human experimentation in France articles, one might argue that this article raises WP:NPOV or WP:COATRACK issues. If the United States was specificly notable for being a nation that carries out an unusually large amount of "human experimentation", it might be noteworthy. Otherwise I can't really see the point. I'm changing my position to delete, though I might not be against a WP:LIST or WP:CATEGORY compiling the same set of experiments this article does. NickCT (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In the category of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there's Japanese human experimentations (points to a substantial section in Japanese war crimes), and a fairly long article at Nazi human experimentation. I suspect that a similar article could be written for basically every country that has ever existed, since Informed consent was basically an invention of the 20th century. Criminals may have been killed by vivisection and poison/antidote experimentation at least as long ago as third century BCE (see e.g., ISBN 9781888456028 p 475-477). I don't think that the non-existence of "Human experimentation in ancient Greece" is necessarily a good argument against an article on this limited subject related to the US. Perhaps it just means that nobody has yet gotten interested in writing such a thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I also have not heard of anything written about ancient Greek human experimentation, and thus don't think the topic warrants an article per WP:NOTABLE. But as far as human experimentation in the U.S., there are numerous high-quality reliable sources that do discuss this topic, as you can see in the article's references section. This includes a wide array of books from academic publishers, congressional hearings on this topic, peer reviewed journal articles, and many others. There is no question that this topic easily satisifies WP:NOTABLE. There has not been a single policy-based reason for not having this article, other than an appeal to WP:IAR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'd like to stop wasting time discussing whether the article should exist (it clearly should, per WP:NOTABLE), and focus on (a) fixing problems that people see with the article, and (b) discussing potential renaming. Otherwise, I'd really like someone to just take it to AFD, so we can settle this quickly. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv - Your logic is flawed in that you are making the claim that since the individual events cataloged in this article are WP:NOTABLE, the article as a whole must be WP:NOTABLE. The error here is obvious if you think about it. The Grizzly Bear and Black Bear are WP:NOTABLE. That doesn't mean Bears of the United States are WP:NOTABLE.

Can you really provide a reasonable amount of RS that discusses "Human Experimentation" in the US as whole, rather than RS that discuss individual examples of it? NickCT (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

NickCT -- I'll ask that you try to not be so abrasive. I'm not trying to fight with you -- I'd like to calmly discuss how to improve the article. Maybe you're not intending to be abrasive, but it's coming off that way to me. If you're not, sorry.

First of all, you are putting words in my mouth. I am not claiming that because the individual events are notable that the article topic is notable. I'm basing my notability argument on the fact that high-quality reliable sources have been written specifically about the topic of the article, for example:

• Susan E. Lederer (1997). Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America Before the Second World War. JHU Press. ISBN 9780801857096.
• Harriet A. Washington (2008). Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. Random House. ISBN 9780767915472.
• Jonathan D. Moreno (2001). Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans. Routledge. ISBN 0415928354 (which exclusively covers experiments by the United States government)
• Eileen Welsome (1999). The Plutonium Files: America's Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War. New York: Dial Press. ISBN 0-385-31402-7

You might also want to take a look at ACHRE, which was a U.S. congressional hearing dedicated entirely to human experimentation in the U.S.

I'll also note that these are simply a few works that explicitly use the words "human", "experimentation" and "united states" in the title. Many of the other sources, such as many medical ethics textbooks (such as [2][3]), also cover the topic directly (i.e. they specifically focus on the history of unethical human subject research in the United States), but simply don't have the phrase in the title of the book itself.

This is what I mean by reliable sources cover this topic. The fact that hundreds of sources also cover the individual events is important, but that's not what I'm primarily basing my notability argument on. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Read your comments above "wasting time" and "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" and tell me that's not abrasive. Anyways, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. My apologies if I did. I'd point out that most of your sources are limited in scope (i.e. dealing w/ limited time periods, limited kinds of experiments, racial elements of experimentation). "Undue Risk" sounds like the most convincing.

On another point, I think WP:NOTABLE is only one potential argument against this article. A better question might be, is this article encyclopedic? I mean really. Would you find this kind of shinanigans in Britanica? Anyway you cut it, this article is basically just a compilation of individually notable pieces. I think WP:NOTTEXTBOOK or WP:NOT PAPER applies here. And before someone cites WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, I've read it and understand the idea.

Additionally, one issue with "summary style" articles like this is that they basically create a WP:CONTENTFORK and unnecessarily duplication of information in a way that doesn't really add anything to WP.

Following from my previous thought, there is no point in summarizing "Human Experiments" in the United States, as there is no point in summarizing Bears of the United States, or Civil War Battles having occurred in Virginia. Sure, you may be able to point to 1 or 2 RS that covers the topic as a whole, but unless there is some good logical argument for collecting isolated subjects together in this manner, that very clearly passes WP:NOTABLE, they shouldn't be collected. I don't think this subject fits that criteria. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. So there. NickCT (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Read your comments above "wasting time" and "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" and tell me that's not abrasive -- I didn't mean them to be abrasive. I felt that the conversation was going in circles and that we were wasting time rehashing the same things over and over again, and felt that it would be more reasonable to go to AFD if people really wanted to push for deletion. As far as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that policy is explicitly meant to cover deletion arguments based on personal preference rather than policy, so I felt that it was appropriate response to deletion arguments based on personal preference rather than policy.
• Anyways, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. My apologies if I did. -- You very clearly did, but apologies accepted.
• I'd point out that most of your sources are limited in scope -- Yes they are limited in scope -- they are all covering unethical human experimentation in the U.S. Every piece of literature is limited in scope -- that's how things get written in a finite number of words. And regardless, the fact is that several of them are covering unethical human experimentation in the U.S. in general, in addition to those that go into more depth about a specific time period or type of experiments. So the criteria in WP:NOTABLE are satisfied, and WP:NOTABLE is how we determine if a topic warrants an article.
• is this article encyclopedic -- I think so, yes. And more importantly, it clearly satisfies the criteria in WP:NOTABLE and thus warrants an article.
• Would you find this kind of shinanigans in Britanica? -- I wouldn't call it "shenanigans", but if you wanted to ask "Would Brittanica have an article on this?" I'd say, "I don't know, and I don't care -- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so what Brittanica would do is irrelevant."
• Anyway you cut it, this article is basically just a compilation of individually notable pieces. -- Nope, it's not. It's covering a topic that is the primary topic of numerous reliable sources, as I've just demonstrated to you above.
• I think WP:NOTTEXTBOOK or WP:NOT PAPER applies here. -- I don't see anything in either of these that seems to apply here. Care to explain your reasoning?
• one issue with "summary style" articles like this is that they basically create a WP:CONTENTFORK... -- Again, I'm not seeing anything in WP:CONTENTFORK that suggests that this article shouldn't exist. Although I am seeing arguments that respond to some of your criticisms of it such as: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork." or "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view."
• and unnecessarily duplication of information -- what is being duplicated? Also, see WP:CONTENTFORK which states "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another."
• there is no point in summarizing Bears of the United States, or Civil War Battles having occurred in Virginia -- I think these both sound like reasonable article topics, assuming that reliable sources have been written on each of them (which they likely have).
• That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. So there. -- That's not how intelligent discussion is supposed to work. Generally you are supposed to question your beliefs in the face of new evidence, rather than deciding at the beginning that you are not going to change your opinion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• "You very clearly did, but " - Clearly
• "they are all covering unethical human experimentation in the U.S. " - They cover a limited set of examples of unethical human experimentation in the U.S. None of them cover it as a general topic (perhaps with the exception of Jonathan D. Moreno). That is what I meant by "limited in scope". So really, you haven't provided RS dealing with the topic generally.
• " Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so what Brittanica would do is irrelevant." - Fair enough. But I think noting/accepting that this kind of article wouldn't be present in Britinica puts the onus on you to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:NOTABLE and WP:V
• "Nope, it's not. It's covering a topic that is the primary topic of numerous reliable sources, as I've just demonstrated to you above. " - Nope, you haven't. As I'd pointed out above, the RS you mention doesn't deal with the topic generally, but rather with subsections of the topic.
• "there is no point in summarizing Bears of the United States, or Civil War Battles having occurred in Virginia -- I think these both sound like reasonable article topics," - I think this is really the crux of the argument, and I think the fact that you'd find those articles reasonable most clearly demonstrates the problem with your argument. You do realize that by your reasoning one could basicly create an infinite number of articles on WP which essentially serve to gruop individually notable subjects into more general topics? This isn't the job of an encyclopedia. It's the job of textbooks and papers (hence my reference to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK/WP:NOT PAPER). Frankly, if you don't get why Bears of the United States or Civil War Battles having occured in Virginia or Marsupials of Sourthern Australia or Incidents of Piracy of the late 1800s are innappropriate articles you are simply missing a point I take as self-evident. Even if these subjects do have a book or two written about them, they still don't pass WP:NOTABLE.
• "That's not how intelligent discussion is supposed to work" - Obviously I was trying to be funny. But, as you bring it up, do you really think you are qualified to describe how intelligent discussion is meant to work? NickCT (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything that you've said here is essentially a repetition of something you've said above that I've already responded to. You can read my responses to when you said them before, if interested. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Cop out answer. Perhaps this goes around in circles because you never address the point. NickCT (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to everything you've said the first time around; you then simply repeated yourself, rather than responding to my counter-arguments. Perhaps you feel that the points aren't being addressed, because you've decided beforehand that nothing is going to change your mind (i.e. "That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. So there."). Of course with that attitude, you'll always come up with tenuous explanations of why my responses aren't satisfactory and don't address whatever "point" you are trying to make. I'll reserve my time and effort for people who are willing to have an open-minded discussion, rather than repeating their immutable personal opinions over and over again. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact you would accuse me of being unwilling to change to my mind based on my saying "That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it" demonstrates that 1) You have no sense of humour, and more importantly 2) You simply didn't read or didn't care about my saying "Obviously I was trying to be funny". I'm guessing you simply aren't reading or don't care about the other points I've raised, and are resorting to the tired old head-in-sand "I've already answered that point" style of debating. NickCT (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, we should probably just acknowledge impass here, and perhaps seek outside opinion rather than bickering. I've noted from the edit history that this is basicly your article, and understandably I'm probably not going to be able to convince you it's extraneous. NickCT (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should seek outside opinion, which is why we're having an RFC right now.

And as far as WP:OWN, that applies to behavior where a certain editor acts as if an article is his/her own, and won't let other editors make changes to it. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says that a certain editor can't volunteer their time to create an important article without the assistance of other editors. I'm actually very open to other editors improving it (it's still a C-class article after all), and have said so repeatedly. It's just that very few people have chosen to do so at this point. So WP:OWN has absolutely no bearing here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm accusing you of being unwilling to change your mind based on the fact that you have refused to acknowledge anything that contradicts your opinions. The fact that you openly said that you weren't going to change your mind just reinforced that. But you are correct on #2 -- I simply didn't care that you tried to save face afterwards by pointing out that you were "just trying to be funny". (Talk about "cop out answers" as you put it). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, you're obviously not trying to interpret my comments in a positive light, and you're obviously not willing to concede points. It's a joke that you would accuse others of being "abrasive". NickCT (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to interpret your comments in any light -- I'm interpreting them objectively based on what I see before me -- your words and actions.

I am very willing to concede points, if you'll make sound ones. But I'm not going to concede bad points just because you keep repeating them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Right..... So you happen to have perfectly objective interpretation. You're the first person I've met who does. Minus myself of course.

You never answered my question re "You do realize that by your reasoning one could.... " and you didn't concede the point. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, see WP:PAPER. It's only two paragraphs -- please read it this time. It resolves this non-issue quite clearly. If you make the effort, but still don't understand how it applies to your "but you could have an infinite number of topics" argument, let me know and I'll explain it to you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So I take that your position is; It's ok to add an infinite number of articles of the nature I mentioned above b/c "There is no practical limit to the number of topics it [WP] can cover". Before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, let me ask you whether this is an accurate reflection of your view point? NickCT (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking before responding.

My viewpoint is that as long as a topic satisfies the criteria in WP:NOTABLE and WP:NOT, then it is worthy of a Wikipedia article, regardless of how many articles we end up creating by adhering to these policies. The reason I hold this viewpoint is because WP:NOTABLE says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT." and WP:NOTPAPER states "There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Renaming

I don't like this for a variety of reasons, and will possibly contest it in the future, but I feel that renaming the article, per SDY and NickCT's concerns, would resolve a major part of the current conflict. I'm willing to compromise here for now, so that we can work on improving the article. I've gone ahead and used SDY's suggestion for a new title. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% happy with it either, but I can live with this. It's basically what the article was before, it's just calling a spade a spade. SDY (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry we got off to a bad start with each other. Would you like to start working with me on the article Human subject research in the United States? I agree with you that it's a really critical article to have. The state of Human subject research is total crap as well -- it does give undue weight to unethical experiments, and should mostly focus on actual practice; most of the article is comprised of unethical research cases, and doesn't even significantly cover standard HSR practices. I'd be interested in collaborating on that as well. That might be a good place to start as far as the Human subject research in the United States article: we could begin by creating a section for the U.S. at human subject research, which could be broken off into a sub-article (Human subject research in the United States) once it's long enough to warrant its own article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies but I have to say that this move made a bad title slightly worse. "Unethical" is such a POV word. NickCT (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Unethical" is indeed a POV word, because whether or not the experiments are unethical is a point of view. And having an article on a point of view is totally acceptable, according to WP:CONTENTFORK. The primary focus of most of the works on this topic is the allegedly unethical aspects of the experiments (hence the large number of medical ethics texts used as sources), so it's natural that "unethical" is in the title. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose to renaming. We do not use such qualifiers in article titles. Even Human experimentation in Nazi Germany has no such qualifiers. Why? Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves.Biophys (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If we cannot rename it, we're going to have to deal with the problem that "Human experimentation" is already a loaded phrase that implies unethical, and the article clearly does not cover human subject research in general. "Human subject research in Nazi Germany" would probably have about the same content as "Human experimentation" since reliable sources give overwhelming weight to the... problems... in research ethics, so a qualifier isn't really necessary. Even if the title of this article did not include "unethical" it would imply it anyway. I don't think this is an appropriate topic for an article at all, as discussed above, but I am satisfied with it if it calls a spade a spade. SDY (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, "Human experimentation" implies unethical. Just remove word "unethical" as unnecessary.Biophys (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I was originally saying that "human experimentation" implies unethical, but got several complaints that it didn't, wasn't clear, etc. ... I just did the move to diffuse part of the conflict, so that we weren't fighting about multiple things at once. If everyone (or almost everyone, at least) is in agreement now that it does imply unethical, then I'd also like to remove "unethical" from the title, and just move it back to Human experimentation in the United States. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It implies it, but it doesn't imply it unambiguously. As the old yarn goes, "write not so that you will be understood, write so that you cannot be misunderstood." Calling it just "Human experimentation" can very easily be misunderstood, since that term is used to mean many things even if we are using it for only one meaning. The qualifier "unethical" informs the reader exactly what we mean. I'd hate to even think of ignoring WP:NPOV (and I don't think we are since "Unethical" clearly describes the intended article content), but if we confuse or mislead the reader with a nuanced title, that isn't good writing. SDY (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from. As I've said before, I'm willing to go either way in order to to resolve the title conflict and allow us to work on other things for now. I don't personally think it's necessary, but I think there are more important things to deal with right now. I'd especially like to start collaborating on Human subject research in the United States, so that we can place this article in a proper historical context. We can always come back to the title issue for this article later. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see any related to health cases of human subject research that was ethical. Even in the case of consent, a patient usually has no idea what the doctor he trusts does to his health (unless the patient has at least a general biological education and look at the related publications). Even some drugs approved by FDA would never be taken by many patients if they ever looked at the published human subject research studies of the drug: some people died, others had new health problems. Was it ethical? And we all know why such drugs are approved by the FDA: most of the panelists have a declared conflict of interest.Biophys (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The use of established treatments in medical care is generally not considered research. Inappropriate use might be unethical, but that's way beyond the scope of this article. SDY (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

@Biophys: I understand where you are coming from, but don't fully agree with you. I know several people that have used experimental drugs and surgical for cancers, injuries, and debilitating diseases such as Crohn's, fully aware of the potentially harmful side effects. I hardly see their consensually agreeing to test out new drugs or procedures as "unethical". On the other hand, I do understand what you mean as far as pharmaceutical corporations, regulators, and certain medical professionals having a conflict of interest in testing certain drugs, and that they still do research unethically today.

But anyhow, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the idea that all human subject research is unethical is definitely a fringe viewpoint, and shouldn't be given undue weight here. The topic of this article is discussed in a wide array of reliable sources, but I've yet to see a single one make the claim that all research is unethical. (Of course, if a significant number of reliable sources made this claim, I'd be willing to reconsider, but I've read quite a bit into it, and have yet to see it, so it makes me doubt it's a very significant viewpoint). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The exact opposite viewpoint, that it is unethical to restrict the rights of patients to experiment with potentially dangerous but also potentially life-saving medications has a lot better sourcing and advocates (most recently Abigail_Alliance_v._von_Eschenbach). I suppose this is the internet, so I should expect to see harebrained conspiracy theories and extremist viewpoints, but it still saddens me when I run into them. You could find a thousand sources that say the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle, and I would still call it a fringe viewpoint. SDY (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Given the quality of the sources which claim that only some research is unethical, but that it can be done in an ethical manner if properly regulated and monitored, sources making the claim that no research is ethical, would have to be of very high quality as well, and would receive only a very small amount of weight here, and would need to be clearly attributed as a fringe viewpoint in the article. I have not seen a single high-quality source making this claim, though, so I doubt it is worthy of any weight. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You can probably find religious groups, such as Christian Scientists, that would have a problem with all medical research. They're probably not unique in that view, but in those cases it's more an article of faith than a problem of ethics. SDY (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@SDY. "it is unethical to restrict the rights of patients to experiment with potentially dangerous but also potentially life-saving medications". Yes, I certainly agree, but only if the subject/patient was fully aware of potential negative results of the medication he is taking. Real life is very different. In practice, some US doctors intentionally mislead their patients to use them for research purposes and causing their death, and yes, I personally saw such "doctor". But I only wanted to tell that I object to renaming this page.Biophys (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I know... a little bit... about research ethics so it's not like any of the allegations about investigator misconduct are news to me. I'm not really all that happy with either title, mostly because the current title is overly wordy and the previous title didn't really describe the article content. My proposed solutions, the rest of which have involved a substantial change to the content of the article, have otherwise been shot down, so I'd rather leave this article with a clumsy but accurate title. If the title sounds overly judgmental, it's only because it correctly reflects the content. SDY (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose to renaming. I am not convinced that the typical reader will automatically infer from the word "experimentation" that the experiments are unethical. I think is necessary to make it explicit, and that in turn justifies having a stand-along article, separate from Human subject research in the United States. Delia Peabody (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My CAN$0.02...I think that it's a worthy article in its own right, on its own. What seems to be the norm is to have a highly condensed paragraph or two in the Human subject research article, with a link above to the more detailed article. I was going to say that the term "Human experimentation" was unambiguous, but while talking to my wife, she asked me what I was refering to, so...however, I think that the description and link does enough justice, so carry on! Oh, and as for the quality of citations, somebody has to have access to a university library! How many academic papers must have been/are being written on the subject?Yamagawa10k (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not as Helpful as I would have Liked

I know you people are wrestling with a lot of heavy moral decisions here, but this page still seems to come up short. I discovered today that John Franklin Enders tested a measlesm vaccine in 1960 on retarded American children and on non-retarded children in Nigeria. I came over here to see if Franklin's work met the ethical guidelines in place in the US at that time. If the information is on this page, I must have missed it. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Testing of this sort is complicated. The traditional expectation was that to ethically test it on people, you'd already done enough background work (such as animal testing) to know that there's a good chance that it would work and not have nasty side effects (q.v. Elixir sulfanilamide). The reality is that there were no clear ethical guidelines in place at the time, and the Enders study you're mentioning is probably in that gray area of ethics where it wouldn't have raised eyebrows at the time but is completely inappropriate by modern standards. SDY (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Formatting and organization

There is much interesting material in this article, but it is organized in odd ways. For example, what is the point of having a separate section for each radioactive substance used in experiments? Also, the list/time-line format that many subsections follow is strange. It would be better to have a sort of narrative about the history and motivations of these experiments, using the listed events as examples. The Psychological and torture experiments/US government research section reads better than some other sections, because there is a narrative of sorts. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are suggesting combining all of the radiation experiments into a single section so that it flows better, I agree with you. I'll start working on that this afternoon. Thanks for the suggestion. Any other problems you see, or things you would change? The article definitely needs a lot of work. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

::The main problem I see is that several sections are comprised simply of a list of historical facts. It would be better to have an overview paragraph about the type of unethical research in question, what motivated it, and then a description of how it changed or developed over time, which could be illustrated by the examples (instead of simply listing them.) Delia Peabody (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The FDA and foreign trials

I'm not going to get anywhere close to editing this section, I have massive conflicts of interest with the topic, but some thoughts about the content:

Foreign trials submitted to the FDA must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki or the domestic standards in the country that the trial takes place, whichever is stricter (this is actually a bit of a political brouhaha, because some people think that deferring to an international standard is a violation of sovereignty, but whatever). They're also required to follow what is called good clinical practice. Our article on that isn't very helpful, but it's basically a set of quality and conduct standards that include being able to document consent. FDA does some audits of foreign clinical trials to enforce these standards, but only for the studies that are actually being presented for approval. For example, a company could very easily do a Phase I "first in man" study (which is always considered high risk), kill a bunch of people, and decide not to further develop the drug.

The frustrating and damning reality of third world medicine is that the known effective treatments are often unavailable, unaffordable, or both. Clinical trials offer the hope of modern medicine to people who would otherwise be unable to afford it, and that makes those people extremely vulnerable to coercion because they can't afford to not give consent even if they were presented and understood all of the benefits and risks, were able to withdraw from the trial at any time they chose, and all of the other demands associated with ethical research.

Many of the trials done overseas are what are called bioequivalence studies that are comparing generic drugs with their name-brand counterparts to show that they work just as well. From a medical standpoint they're safer because the risks are known, but they have their own ethical pitfalls, especially the whole concept of a "professional research subject" (BEQ participants are almost always paid healthy volunteers). We have these professionals stateside as well, and they're inevitably the poor and disadvantaged (often minority) folks that the Belmont Report frowned on using as trial subjects.

This is a complex subject, and this article, which still reads as a condemnation rather than a neutral reporting of facts, is seriously oversimplifying this and other issues into Fox News talking points rather than actual information. Medical research is always ethically frustrating, and there's a complex balance between unethical to risk the unknown and unethical not to try to at least try to save lives. The neutral reporting of facts is troubling enough without going into histrionics of "killed babies". SDY (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Foreign trials submitted to the FDA must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki or the domestic standards in the country that the trial takes place, -- Right, but the point that the articles are making is that the FDA only monitored/inspected 45 out of 6500 trials, and the "domestic standards" are extremely lax. Existence of regulations does not imply enforcement of said regulations.
• This is a complex subject, and this article, which still reads as a condemnation rather than a neutral reporting of facts -- I agree that this is a complex subject, and could be much better discussed -- especially theoretical and legislative aspects. I'm more interested in history myself, so that's mostly what I've contributed, but I believe that the biggest omission from this article is a more in-depth discussion of the impact that these experiments had on bioethics, legislation that was passed because of them, etc. I don't however feel that the article is not neutral -- it is objectively reporting what the sources are saying. But the article is mostly "negative" because it is, after all, an article about unethical behavior. That's not a problem though -- what is important is that we accurately report what reliable sources have to say about it.
• is seriously oversimplifying this and other issues into Fox News talking points rather than actual information. -- Could you explain what you mean by this? What do you feel is being oversimplified?
• The neutral reporting of facts is troubling enough without going into histrionics of "killed babies". -- I wouldn't call it "histrionics". It's pretty calmly and plainly stated, as it is in the source cited. It's an important example of the types of ethical dilemmas that motivated the concern over foreign testing with lax regulations and oversight.

Overall, I agree with you that the article needs a lot of work, especially in the areas I singled out above. But I don't think the problem is neutrality -- I think it's more of omission of everything other than history, and of lack of cohesive structure/theory to connect all of these isolated events together. I'd especially like to see more from sources that are interpreting the ethical significance of these events. Anyhow, I look forward to your suggestions. Enjoy your weekend. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

When the article uses, without challenge or consideration, direct quotes from advocacy sites like CounterPunch (self-described partisan muckrackers) it's hard to take it seriously. I am extremely suspicious that that site qualifies as a reliable source for anything but its own opinion. Anyone using the phrase "killed babies" is obviously making an appeal to emotion. There is no discussion of how they were "killed." Did they have adverse reactions to medications? Were they denied the standard of care treatment? Were they gruesomely sacrificed and their stem cells fed to Christopher Reeve? If this were a reliable source, it would give more than an emotional "factoid." I'm not the only one that has challenged the content of this article as overly sensational. SDY (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

:::I agree generally with Jrtayloriv. I don't think the article has a neutrality problem, but it is awkwardly written and comes off as a list/timeline when some sort of analysis and historical perspective is called for. Some issues of medical research are ethically complex and when in doubt, we should err on the side of omitting them. Others, like MK-ULTRA, are not. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That lack of perspective and detail is part of the problem. The article sounds like a copyvio from an activist site because activism is about persuading, not informing, and context and perspective would dampen the effect. The gratuitous graphic descriptions also don't help. If nothing else, I think we should shift the article to focus on the big, well-described institutional problems like Tuskegee, Joliet, and MKULTRA-things where there are no shortage of high quality sources written by historians and neutral context and perspective are easy to find and source. We should take care not to duplicate content, though. SDY (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as "gratuitous graphic descriptions", some of the experiments performed will be disturbing to most people if they are objectively reported here. That doesn't mean that there is a problem with neutrality, any more than there is for making "graphic descriptions" of what happened at Buchenwald. It's not "activism" to simply state what happened, just because it's disturbing. As far as selecting a few events and focusing only on those, I think that is not a very good idea for a variety of reasons. Most of the experiments mentioned here can be found in a variety of high-quality sources, and there is no reason to believe they didn't occur as described here, so what is the justification for removing them? I don't think it's going to be possible to objectively determine which are the most "important". I think the end result of that is going to be an article that gives readers a very misleading perception of the history of unethical experimentation in the United States, by giving the impression that there were only a handful of isolated incidents ("Oh, it only happened a few times here, here, and here, and was widely reviled, etc.") So basically, I see it severely misleading readers, while providing no clear benefit other than removing facts that some deem "gratuitous". On the other hand, I am not opposed to elaborating more on each of the incidents described. I don't agree with you that it would "dampen the effect" to elaborate more on the experiments mentioned -- it's desperately needed. Most of them, I just added as one sentence "stubs" for people to expand on from the sources listed (or others they can find). The whole point is to present the topic as accurately and completely as possible, and if some feel that this would "dampen the effect", then they are in the wrong place. I see no reason to not provide as much information as we can find from reliable sources -- after all, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If the article gets too large, we'll just break it up into sub-articles. We don't need to delete anything -- we just need to expand on things. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

gratuitous break

(hard to navigate long pages on this phone)

Now that we have Godwin's Law out of the way, I'd just like to point back to three policies: WP:SYN, which prohibits editors from cobbling new arguments out of reliable facts, WP:UNDUE, which prohibits editors from making their own judgments about what is important, especially contrary to established consensus outside wikipedia, and last but not least, WP:NOTSOAP which is part of the core idea that we're trying to write an encyclopedia, not right great wrongs or expose evildoers.

This isn't about the US. Our DPRK equivalent to this article is even worse, because at least most of this article is based in undeniable fact. SDY (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have great difficulty assuming good faith at this point, and will de-watchliat this article. If it sounds like activists preaching to the choir, it won't be the only article with that problem, and there's more to life than wikipedia. SDY (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"WP:SYN, which prohibits editors from cobbling new arguments out of reliable facts" -- What is in violation of WP:SYN?

"WP:UNDUE, which prohibits editors from making their own judgments about what is important" -- What do you feel is being given undue weight?

"WP:NOTSOAP which is part of the core idea that we're trying to write an encyclopedia, not right great wrongs or expose evildoers. -- I agree. But how does that apply to this article? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the fundamental problem with this article is the idea that defining the subject is inherently POV. Whose ethics are we to use when determining what is unethical? If a person's research has been accepted by the scientific community, and he has not been convicted of any crime, by what other code do we convict in this court of public opinion? Medical experimentation is not new, and it's inevitable that today's medical practices will be decried as barbarism in the future. This does not excuse atrocities committed in the name of science, but it makes any discussion of ethics extremely sensitive to context. There is no gain for an encyclopaedia in separating out edge cases from a continuum to argue a point, and without context this article is merely a collection of trivia. Jrtayloriv seems to have used many arguments for justifying the separate existence of this article, but it is not separately notable from the wider field of study and does not represent a distinct category of human endeavour or knowledge. Most of the good content is reproduced elsewhere already, e.g. MKULTRA and the Tuskegee experiments, and the rest should either be discarded as trivia or folded into the article on human subject research. Anyone wishing to promote awareness of unethical human experimentation is advised to write a book on the matter (and hire a better copy editor, if the article is anything to go by). 69.178.91.64 (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)