The New York Times recently published a story about a “new breed” of researchers who are using their children as subjects in various experiments. Dr. Pawan Sinha, a neuroscience professor at MIT was excited for his baby’s birth because “[he] really wanted to study [his baby] and do experiments with him”. Dr. Sinha then went on to install a camera on his baby Darius’s head to study what the baby was looking at.
However, as the article goes on to describe, such experiments have been happening for a long time now. Those who study language acquisition and child development have been using their own children as subjects for many years.
Even though most of the studies performed on these children are harmless and even provide valuable scientific data, bioethicist have raised questions about the “conflict of interest” between playing the role of a parent and or a researcher. It is very easy to agree with these ethicists because as a reader it is alarming to see how children are used as scientific experiments. It is impossible to play both roles side-by-side as one side will always take over the other; either the parent will take over the researcher or the researcher will gain precedent over the parent.
Looking from another perspective, however, I feel that most children are subjected to experiments led by their parents in their childhood. Whenever I had a sore throat my mother would force me to drink hot milk mixed with turmeric as she was convinced that it was the best medicine. My best friend’s dad, on the other hand, also did several reading exercises (which he created) when he noticed that my friend stammered while speaking. Neither my mother nor my friend’s dad is a scientist. And this is what leads me to believe that is impossible to separate the “scientist” from the “parent”. Parenting on its own involves a lot of experimenting – what is the best way to train your child to use the toilet, or what is the best way to help your child start reading? In this sense the research is less formal but it still involves a similar scientific process which scientists like Dr. Sinha used.
1 comment:
Fatema, I also see the close overlap between researcher and parent that you mentioned. I know that my parents have tried many methods in raising me and my sister. Indeed, many people would probably agree with your idea that parenthood is simply a series of experiments.
However, I think there is a difference between Sinha’s approach and typical parenting that has to be made: purpose. The two approaches differ similar to how clinical experiments differ from experimental treatments. As we read in the beginning of the Belmont report, experimentation and treatment are not the same, even if there is a therapeutic component to the experiment. The purpose of an experiment is always to collect data, while the purpose of a treatment is always to cure or alleviate the patient’s condition. In much the same way, even if typical parenting involves trial-and-error, the final goal is to bring up one’s child to best of one’s ability – not collect scientific data. I cannot agree that growing up as your father’s patient would be the same as growing up as your father’s child.
I also cannot see the complete ethicality of such tests. Sinha had to perform his tests secretly since the mother did not agree. In my opinion, this seems to contradict the idea of informed consent. Even though the tests may not be dangerous or completely formal, they are presenting the data as generally legitimate and thus, in my opinion, should undergo proper procedure. Since the children may be young, I feel that the parents’ will should be considered in addition to the will of the child. However, when one parent is in clear disagreement, I feel that such tests should not be allowed to occur.
Post a Comment