| Course | EDP 820 Ethics and Professional Standards in Psychology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Doctoral history paper |
| Length | About 1,038 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 820 Module 5
Why the Rules Exist: A History of Research Ethics for New Board Members
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 820: Ethics and Professional Standards in Psychology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Why the Rules Exist: A History of Research Ethics for New Board Members
Ruth, a psychologist and clinic director at a composite university in Columbus, Ohio, joined the university's institutional review board this year along with three other new members. At their first meeting, one new member, a computer scientist, described the board's requirements as "bureaucratic box-ticking." The chair asked Ruth to prepare a briefing on why the rules exist. The university, its board and its members are fictional. This paper is her briefing.
Nuremberg
Shuster (1997) reviewed the Nuremberg Code fifty years after its creation. At the end of World War II, an American military tribunal tried twenty-three German physicians and administrators for crimes including deadly experiments on concentration camp prisoners, such as freezing, high-altitude and infection experiments. In its 1947 judgment, the tribunal set out ten principles for permissible medical experiments. The first, and most quoted, made a person's free and informed agreement the precondition of any experiment. Others required that experiments yield results for the good of society, avoid unnecessary suffering, be conducted by qualified people and allow subjects to end their participation. Shuster noted that many American researchers saw the code as applying to Nazi atrocities rather than to their own work, which limited its early influence.
Abuses at Home
Beecher (1966), a Harvard anesthesiologist, published in a leading medical journal twenty-two examples of studies, drawn from published reports in reputable journals, that he considered ethically questionable. They included withholding known effective treatment, infecting institutionalized children with hepatitis and injecting cancer cells into elderly patients without their knowledge. Consent was rarely mentioned. Beecher argued that such studies were not rare aberrations and that the investigators were not villains but researchers whose zeal for knowledge overrode their obligations to subjects. His article showed that unethical research was occurring in mainstream American medicine.
Tuskegee
Brandt (1978) analyzed the Tuskegee study of untreated syphilis, conducted by the United States Public Health Service from 1932 to 1972. About four hundred Black men with syphilis in Macon County, Alabama, were observed to document the disease's course. They were not told they had syphilis, were deceived about the purpose of procedures and were not treated, even after penicillin became the standard treatment in the 1940s; researchers took steps to prevent them from receiving it. Brandt showed that racist assumptions about Black people's sexuality, health and intelligence shaped the study's rationale and helped it continue. It ended only after a whistleblower's concerns reached the press in 1972.
| Year | Episode | What it revealed | Protection that followed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1947 | Nuremberg judgment | Lethal experiments on prisoners | Nuremberg Code: voluntary consent essential |
| 1964 | Declaration of Helsinki | Need for physician-led standards | Research ethics codes in medicine |
| 1966 | Beecher's article | Abuses in mainstream research | Federal requirements for review of funded research |
| 1972 | Tuskegee exposed | Racism, deception, withheld treatment | National Research Act of 1974; Belmont Report of 1979 |
| 1991 | Common Rule | Need for uniform federal standards | Institutional review boards across federal agencies |
From History to Regulation
Tuskegee's exposure led Congress to pass the National Research Act in 1974, which created a commission whose Belmont Report of 1979 named the three principles still used today, which it called respect for persons, beneficence and justice. These underlie federal regulations, including the Common Rule adopted across agencies in 1991, which requires institutional review boards to review research with human participants. The board Ruth has joined exists because of this history.
Lessons for Psychology
Psychology has its own controversies, including Milgram's obedience studies, examined elsewhere in this program, and studies using deception. The history offers three lessons for psychologists on review boards. First, harm has come from respected researchers convinced of their work's value, so good intentions are not enough. Second, vulnerable groups, including prisoners, institutionalized people and marginalized communities, have borne disproportionate risks. Third, consent, review and protection of participants are not formalities but responses to real harms.
The Belmont Principles in Practice
The Belmont Report's three principles map onto what the board does. Respect for persons requires informed consent and extra protection for people with diminished autonomy, such as children and prisoners. Beneficence asks the board to cut risks as far as possible and to accept only those outweighed by likely good, which is why every study's risks are weighed. Justice requires a fair distribution of research burdens and benefits, a direct response to Tuskegee, where poor Black men bore the risks of research whose benefits went to others. When a new member asks why the board scrutinizes recruitment from a homeless shelter or a jail, the answer lies in this principle and the history behind it.
Why Researchers Believed They Were Right
The most uncomfortable lesson of the history is that most researchers involved believed their work was justified. Beecher (1966) emphasized that the investigators he described were not malicious; they believed the knowledge gained outweighed the risks to subjects who, in their view, would not be harmed much or would not have been treated anyway. Brandt (1978) showed that the Tuskegee physicians saw themselves as advancing medicine. This is why independent review matters: researchers convinced of their work's value are poorly placed to judge its risks to others.
Psychology's Episodes
Psychology's own history includes studies that relied on deception or caused distress, such as Milgram's obedience research, and debates about them shaped the field's ethics code. Board members from psychology should bring that history to the table rather than seeing research ethics as a medical concern alone.
What the New Members Said
After the briefing, the computer scientist said he had not known that the board's rules traced to specific harms. He asked whether the same principles applied to research using social media data, where people never meet the researcher. Ruth said they did, and that the board was working out how; the history suggested that whenever researchers gain new access to people, protections lag behind. That question carries forward into the board's work on data and privacy.
Conclusion
Shuster showed how the Nuremberg Code set voluntary consent at the center of research ethics, Beecher showed that abuses occurred in mainstream research and Brandt showed how racism shaped Tuskegee. For new board members, the history explains why the board's rules exist and why they deserve to be taken seriously.
References
Beecher, H. K. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354-1360. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM196606162742405
Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee syphilis study. The Hastings Center Report, 8(6), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3561468
Shuster, E. (1997). Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code. New England Journal of Medicine, 337(20), 1436-1440. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006
EDP 820 Module 5 instructions, in plain terms
Research ethics history is the usual subject of Module 5 in EDP 820. Use the Module 5 instructions in your Aspen course; the board here is a composite. Trace major episodes, with dates, participants and what went wrong. Explain the protections each episode prompted, such as codes, reports and regulations. Address the role of social factors such as racism and power. Draw lessons for current researchers. Use APA 7, and connect history to present practice rather than treating past abuses as relics of a less enlightened time. Include at least one episode from the behavioral or social sciences, since research ethics is not only a medical history.
How the EDP 820 Module 5 example is put together
Ruth, a composite psychologist joining her university's review board, prepares a briefing for new members. Shuster describes the Nuremberg Code's ten principles, its origins in the trial of Nazi doctors and its limited early influence on American researchers. Beecher describes twenty-two examples of ethically questionable studies published in reputable journals, many without consent. Brandt shows how racial assumptions shaped the Tuskegee study's design and its continuation after penicillin became available. A five-row timeline table links each episode to the protections that followed, and a closing section draws lessons for psychology. Sections address the Belmont principles, psychology's own episodes and why researchers in each case believed they were justified.
Reading the EDP 820 Module 5 grading rubric
A strong history paper traces episodes accurately and connects each to the protections it prompted. This example uses a review of the Nuremberg Code, a contemporary exposé and a historical analysis of Tuskegee, showing that abuses occurred in respected institutions, not only under dictatorships. Racism is treated as central to the Tuskegee case, as the source shows. The timeline links history to current regulations. Lessons for psychology are specific, including the field's own controversies. It also explains why researchers in each episode believed they were justified, which makes the history useful to current researchers who also believe in their work. The Belmont principles are connected to specific board practices, and psychology's own episodes are included so the field does not treat research ethics as a medical problem only.
Common EDP 820 Module 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
History papers often list events without explaining what each revealed. Explain what went wrong and what protection followed. Show that abuses happened in respected settings. Address power and racism directly. Connect history to current rules and to psychology's own history. Avoid presenting past researchers as uniquely villainous, since the history shows how ordinary professionals rationalized harm. Explain why researchers believed they were justified, since that is the lesson most relevant today. Link principles such as those of the Belmont Report to specific current practices. Include episodes from psychology and the social sciences. Give dates and participants for each episode, and avoid presenting the history as finished.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDP 820 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 820 Module 1: Ethical Principles and Professional Standards
- EDP 820 Module 2: Ethical Judgment and Decision Making
- EDP 820 Module 3: Ethics in Leadership
- EDP 820 Module 4: Organizational Ethics
- EDP 820 Module 6: Institutional Review and Informed Consent
- EDP 820 Module 7: Protecting Research Participants
- EDP 820 Module 8: An Ethics Plan for a Research Study
- EDN 810 Module 1: Organizational Structure in Health Care Systems
- EDN 814 Module 5: Planning the Self-Study
- EDO 810 Module 4: Systems and Contingency Theory
- EDP 814 Module 1: The Self and the Self in Groups
EDP 820 Module 5 questions, answered
What does EDP 820 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 820 covers the history of research ethics in this module, so a paper tracing abuses and the protections they prompted is typical. Check your Module 5 prompt.
What is the Nuremberg Code?
Ten principles for human experimentation from the 1947 judgment in the trial of Nazi physicians, beginning with the requirement that voluntary consent is absolutely essential.
What did Beecher's 1966 article show?
Beecher described twenty-two examples of ethically questionable research published in leading journals, showing abuses occurred in mainstream American medicine.
Where can I find a free EDP 820 Module 5 sample paper?
This page holds the full paper: Nuremberg, Beecher's exposé and Tuskegee, with a timeline linking each to modern protections.
Why was the Tuskegee study ethically wrong?
Brandt showed researchers withheld treatment from Black men with syphilis for decades, even after penicillin was available, based on racist assumptions and deception.