I mean, this study was done in 1966. The IRB was established in 1974.
I'm not saying we should celebrate this research, but ... we already learned the lesson about being careful with human experimentation? If there's a more recent study that circumvented the IRB or that the IRB okayed despite obvious problems, there's an interesting discussion to have there.
But I'm more in the camp above, that this pre-IRB study wasn't particularly egregious, at least by the scale of atrocities of early 20th century research.
That’s not the issue at hand. The issue is an article claiming pathogenic material was tested on people.
An article talking about the ins and outs of IRB process approval would be much more informative, or going into detail about what is and is not ethical.
False or at best misleading statements of pathogenic biological tests on people bring us no nearer to actually talking intelligently about the issues or making better decisions.
How does the bacteria spread amongst the subway? HUMANS. They are the substrate.
“ They wrote that clouds engulfed people as trains pulled away, but that they "brushed their clothing, looked up at the grating apron and walked on." No one was concerned.
Army scientists concluded that it took between four and 13 minutes for train passengers to be exposed to the bacteria.”
If they put the bacteria in the system with no human interaction I’m sure the study would be much less valuable.
Would the IRB let me do those things to people without their informed consent?
I very much doubt it.