• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

美国公共卫生服务局在危地马拉进行的性传播疾病实验(1946 - 1948年)及其后果。

U.S. Public Health Service STD Experiments in Guatemala (1946-1948) and Their Aftermath.

作者信息

Spector-Bagdady Kayte, Lombardo Paul A

机构信息

Assistant professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and is the chief of the Research Ethics Service in the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine at University of Michigan Medical School.

Regents' professor and the Bobby Lee Cook professor of law in the Center for Law, Health and Society at Georgia State University College of Law.

出版信息

Ethics Hum Res. 2019 Mar;41(2):29-34. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500010.

DOI:10.1002/eahr.500010
PMID:30895754
Abstract

The U.S. Public Health Service's sexually transmitted disease (STD) experiments in Guatemala are an important case study not only in human subjects research transgressions but also in the response to serious lapses in research ethics. This case study describes how individuals in the STD experiments were tested, exposed to STDs, and exploited as the source of biological specimens-all without informed consent and often with active deceit. It also explores and evaluates governmental and professional responses that followed the public revelation of these experiments, including by academic institutions, professional organizations, and the U.S. federal government, pushing us to reconsider both how we prevent such lapses in the future and how we respond when they are first revealed.

摘要

美国公共卫生服务局在危地马拉进行的性传播疾病(STD)实验是一个重要的案例研究,不仅涉及人体受试者研究中的违规行为,还涉及对研究伦理严重失误的应对。本案例研究描述了性传播疾病实验中的个体是如何被检测、接触性传播疾病并被当作生物样本来源加以利用的——所有这些都是在未获得知情同意的情况下进行的,而且常常伴有主动欺骗行为。它还探讨并评估了这些实验公开披露后政府和专业机构的应对措施,包括学术机构、专业组织和美国联邦政府的措施,促使我们重新思考未来如何防止此类失误,以及在失误首次被揭露时如何应对。

相似文献

1
U.S. Public Health Service STD Experiments in Guatemala (1946-1948) and Their Aftermath.美国公共卫生服务局在危地马拉进行的性传播疾病实验(1946 - 1948年)及其后果。
Ethics Hum Res. 2019 Mar;41(2):29-34. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500010.
2
Human subjects research. Panel blasts ethics, science of 1940s Guatemala studies.人体研究。专家组抨击20世纪40年代危地马拉研究的伦理与科学。
Science. 2011 Sep 2;333(6047):1211. doi: 10.1126/science.333.6047.1211.
3
From in vivo to in vitro: How the Guatemala STD Experiments Transformed Bodies Into Biospecimens.从体内到体外:危地马拉 STD 实验如何将人体转化为生物样本。
Milbank Q. 2018 Jun;96(2):244-271. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12318. Epub 2018 Apr 13.
4
Ethical evasion or happenstance and hubris? The U.S. Public Health Service STD Inoculation Study.道德逃避还是偶然和傲慢?美国公共卫生服务 STD 接种研究。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2012 Mar-Apr;42(2):30-8. doi: 10.1002/hast.17. Epub 2012 Feb 28.
5
"Something of an adventure": postwar NIH research ethos and the Guatemala STD experiments.“颇有一番冒险精神”:战后 NIH 研究风气与危地马拉 STD 实验
J Law Med Ethics. 2013 Fall;41(3):697-710. doi: 10.1111/jlme.12080.
6
US reviews human trial participant protections.美国审查人体试验参与者保护措施。
Lancet. 2010 Dec 11;376(9757):1975-6. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(10)62247-7.
7
The rights and wrongs of intentional exposure research: contextualising the Guatemala STD inoculation study.有意暴露研究的是非曲直:危地马拉 STD 接种研究的背景。
J Med Ethics. 2012 Aug;38(8):513-5. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100379. Epub 2012 Mar 19.
8
Biomedical ethics. Guatemala study from 1940s reflects a 'dark chapter' in medicine.生物医学伦理学。20世纪40年代的危地马拉研究反映了医学史上的“黑暗篇章”。
Science. 2010 Oct 8;330(6001):160. doi: 10.1126/science.330.6001.160.
9
Secret human experiments test trust in government.秘密人体实验考验对政府的信任。
Forum Appl Res Public Policy. 1997 Fall;12(3):109-14.
10
The Guatemala sexually transmitted disease studies: what happened.危地马拉性传播疾病研究:发生了什么。
Sex Transm Dis. 2013 Apr;40(4):277-9. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31828abc1b.

引用本文的文献

1
From Dialogue to Action: Community Recommendations for Inclusive Research Participation Among Underrepresented Populations.从对话到行动:社区对弱势群体参与包容性研究的建议
Health Expect. 2025 Aug;28(4):e70348. doi: 10.1111/hex.70348.
2
Promoting nutrition literacy in children: a case study of a community partnership between a university and an elementary school.促进儿童营养素养:大学与小学社区伙伴关系的案例研究。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2024 Apr 1;112(2):117-124. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2024.1678. Epub 2024 May 22.
3
The Syphilis Pandemic Prior to Penicillin: Origin, Health Issues, Cultural Representation and Ethical Challenges.
青霉素问世前的梅毒大流行:起源、健康问题、文化表征与伦理挑战
Acta Derm Venereol. 2024 Mar 4;104:adv34879. doi: 10.2340/actadv.v104.34879.
4
Reporting of Important Social Determinants of Health in Pediatric Clinical Trials.报告儿科临床试验中的重要社会决定因素健康。
Am J Prev Med. 2023 Jun;64(6):918-926. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2022.12.004. Epub 2023 Jan 6.
5
Recruitment of Older African Americans in Alzheimer's Disease Clinical Trials Using a Community Education Approach.采用社区教育方法招募老年非裔美国人参与阿尔茨海默病临床试验。
J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2022;9(4):672-678. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2022.82.
6
Ethical Dilemmas in the Management of Head and Neck Cancers in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic.新冠疫情时代头颈部癌症管理中的伦理困境
Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022 Mar;60(1):42-46. doi: 10.4274/tao.2022.2021-11-7. Epub 2022 May 12.
7
Fiftieth Anniversary of Uncovering the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The Story and Timeless Lessons.揭示塔斯基吉梅毒研究五十周年:故事和永恒的教训。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022 May 15;205(10):1145-1158. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202201-0136SO.
8
Confidence and Hesitancy During the Early Roll-out of COVID-19 Vaccines Among Black, Hispanic, and Undocumented Immigrant Communities: a Review.新冠疫苗在非裔、拉丁裔和无证移民群体中的早期推广:信心与犹豫。
J Urban Health. 2022 Feb;99(1):3-14. doi: 10.1007/s11524-021-00588-1. Epub 2021 Dec 23.
9
Laboratory Perspective on Racial Disparities in Sexually Transmitted Infections.实验室视角下的性传播感染中的种族差异。
J Appl Lab Med. 2021 Jan 12;6(1):264-273. doi: 10.1093/jalm/jfaa163.
10
Using Mistrust, Distrust, and Low Trust Precisely in Medical Care and Medical Research Advances Health Equity.在医疗保健和医学研究中精准运用不信任、怀疑和低信任度可促进健康公平。
Am J Prev Med. 2021 Mar;60(3):442-445. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.08.019. Epub 2020 Nov 15.