NSG 3029 Week 4 DQ 3: experiment that shaped ethics
Four sub-questions about one experiment, and the fourth asks for a consent standard by name rather than for the phrase 'informed consent'. The chronology is where most answers slip.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 5, 2026
What NSG 3029 Week 4 DQ 3 wants from the consent question
Four sub-questions, and the last one is not a summary — it is a different kind of question from the first three. “What type of consent would have been needed to make the study ethical and valid?” asks you to specify a consent standard, by name, and to say what it would have required in that particular study. Most posts answer it with “informed consent”, which is the category rather than the answer. The graded version names the elements: disclosure of purpose, procedures, risks and alternatives; voluntary agreement free of coercion; capacity to decide; and the right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Consent is also a process rather than a form, and saying so is what turns the last paragraph from a definition into an argument about what would actually have had to change.
Choose the experiment for how much you can say about it, not for how shocking it is. The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male is the strongest choice for this prompt because all four sub-questions have documented answers: it ran from 1932 to 1972 under the US Public Health Service; participants were misled about what was being done to them and were not offered penicillin after it became the standard cure; public exposure led directly to the National Research Act of 1974; and that Act created the commission whose 1979 Belmont Report still governs human-subjects research. A study that only supports the first sub-question will leave three thin paragraphs behind it. Willowbrook, the Nazi medical experiments and the Guatemala syphilis experiments all work for the same reason; the shared feature is a documented aftermath you can cite.
The rights question is where the marks concentrate, so map the violations onto a named framework rather than describing them as wrong:
Principle | What it requires | How Tuskegee breached it |
|---|---|---|
Respect for persons | Voluntary, informed agreement from people with the capacity to decide, and protection for those with diminished autonomy | Participants were not told the study's real purpose and could not consent to something they had not been told about |
Beneficence | Maximise possible benefit and minimise possible harm | An effective cure existed from the 1940s and was withheld, so harm accrued for decades by design rather than by accident |
Justice | Fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of research | The burden fell entirely on poor Black men in rural Alabama, who stood to gain nothing from the knowledge produced |
Note the chronology carefully, because it is the single most common factual error in answers to this prompt. The Belmont Report's three principles were published in 1979, seven years after the study was stopped — so they are the response to it, not a standard it broke. If you want a standard that existed at the time, the Nuremberg Code is the one to cite: it was formulated in 1947, its first directive is that the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential, and it was already two decades old while the study continued. Saying that the study violated Belmont is a chronological mistake; saying that it violated Nuremberg, and that its exposure produced Belmont, is the accurate account. Naming 45 CFR 46 explicitly is worth doing, because it shows the chain ends somewhere concrete rather than in a sentiment about modern ethics.
For the outcomes sub-question, follow the chain rather than listing consequences. Press exposure in 1972 ended the study; the National Research Act of 1974 followed and established the national commission; the commission produced the Belmont Report in 1979; and its principles were operationalised in the federal regulations at 45 CFR 46 that require institutional review board oversight of federally funded research today. That sequence is what the phrase “outcomes or legislature associated with the study” is asking for, and tracing it also answers the fourth sub-question for you — the consent standard now required is the direct descendant of the failure you have just described. Close by saying what the study would have looked like had that standard been met — who would have been told what, and at which point they could have walked away with no consequence.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Select a historical case with enough documentation to answer four distinct sub-questions.
- 02Map ethical violations onto a named principled framework rather than describing them informally.
- 03Order the Nuremberg Code, the National Research Act, the Belmont Report and the Common Rule correctly in time.
- 04Specify the elements of a valid consent standard rather than naming the category.
- 05Trace the regulatory chain from a research scandal to present-day IRB oversight.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS Discussion Questions (DQ) Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. NSG 3029 Week 4 DQ 3 One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses. Weekly Participation Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week. APA Format and Writing Quality Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition. Use of Direct Quotes I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source. LopesWrite Policy For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score. Late Policy The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading. Communication Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A historical experiment that impacted or shaped ethical codes and regulations.
- 02A discussion of the experiment itself.
- 03The rights violated within the study, if any.
- 04Outcomes or legislation associated with the study.
- 05The type of consent that would have been needed to make the study ethical and valid.
- 06APA citations and references, per the brief.
- 07An initial post by the due date, and replies to at least two classmates.
From the study to the statute to the standard
Name the study and its basic facts
Identify the experiment, who ran it, when, on whom, and what it was actually investigating.
What participants were and were not told
Set out the gap between what the subjects understood and what was being done, since this is the factual basis of the rights discussion.
Map the violations to named principles
Take respect for persons, beneficence and justice in turn and state what each required and how the study breached it.
Get the chronology right
Distinguish the standards that existed at the time from those created afterwards, naming the Nuremberg Code for the former.
Trace the regulatory chain
Follow exposure to the National Research Act, to the national commission, to the Belmont Report, to the federal regulations requiring IRB review.
Specify the consent that was required
State the elements a valid consent would have needed here — disclosure of purpose and risks, voluntariness, capacity, right to withdraw — and note that consent is a process rather than a form.
Getting the dates right before you cite them
Recommended databases
- Office of Research Integrity (HHS)
- NCBI Bookshelf (StatPearls)
- PubMed / PMC
- South University Online Library
Search sequence
- 1.Fix the chronology first from a source that dates the Nuremberg Code, the National Research Act and the Belmont Report explicitly — this settles the error the prompt most often produces.
- 2.Read the Nuremberg Code's directives directly rather than a summary, since your fourth answer quotes a consent standard.
- 3.Look up the elements of informed consent in a clinical reference so the final sub-question can list them rather than name the category.
- 4.Confirm your chosen study's dates and sponsoring body from a source that gives both.
- 5.Use your course readings and the university library for the APA citations the brief requires.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Nuremberg Code: Directives for Human Experimentation | ORI - The Office of Research Integrity
Office of Research Integrity, US Department of Health and Human Services · 2026
The ten directives in full, including the first — that the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This is the standard that existed while the Tuskegee study was still running, and citing it is what makes the chronology defensible.
- 02
Ethics and the IRB: The History of the Belmont Report
Teachers College, Columbia University (Institutional Review Board) · 2020
The sequence the outcomes sub-question needs: Nazi experiments to the Nuremberg Code, Tuskegee's exposure to the National Research Act of 1974, and the commission's Belmont Report in 1979 with its three principles.
- 03
Informed Consent
StatPearls Publishing (NCBI Bookshelf) · 2024
The elements a valid consent must contain — nature of the intervention, risks and benefits, reasonable alternatives, and an assessment of understanding — plus the point that consent is a communication process rather than a signature.
Before you post: did you say Belmont was violated?
Common mistakes
- Answering the consent question with the words 'informed consent' and stopping. That names the category; the question asks what it would have required here.
- Saying the study violated the Belmont Report. Belmont was published in 1979, after the study ended — it is the response, not the standard breached. The Nuremberg Code (1947) is the contemporaneous standard.
- Choosing an experiment for shock value with little documented aftermath, which leaves the outcomes and consent sub-questions with nothing to work from.
- Describing the harm without naming principles. 'It was unethical' is a verdict; respect for persons, beneficence and justice are an analysis.
- Listing consequences instead of tracing the chain from exposure to statute to report to regulation.
- Omitting APA citations, which this brief requires explicitly.
- Treating consent as a signature rather than a process — capacity, voluntariness, disclosure and the right to withdraw are all part of it.
Submission checklist
- One experiment named specifically, with dates and the sponsoring body.
- Violations mapped to named principles, not described generically.
- The Nuremberg Code cited as the standard that existed at the time, if your case predates 1979.
- The chronology checked: study, exposure, statute, report, regulation.
- The consent answer lists elements, not just the phrase.
- At least one outcome tied to a named Act or regulation.
- APA in-text citations and a reference list.
- Initial post submitted by the due date; two peer replies planned.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.