It is paramount that research participants’ dignity and respect are preserved throughout the

research process; thus, their rights should be given and protected. Gray et al. (2017) specified
self-determination, privacy, anonymity, fair treatment or justice, and protection from discomfort
or harm as the rights of research subjects. Furthermore, Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt (2015) has
included respect for potential and enrolled subjects and informed consent to the ethical principles
in research (p. 524).

Despite the strides the research community has achieved in protecting research subjects’ rights,
its past shortcomings should always serve as a reminder to uphold ethics in research. An example
of this shortcoming is Henrietta Lacks’ cells, or ‘HeLa’ cells, to which her consent for research
was not taken before tissue sample taking. Her cells proved critical in modern medicine's
advancement and have been used in breakthrough research, such as the polio vaccine and some
cancer medications (BBC, 2020). Despite the successes of the research involving her cells, the
ethical and human rights violations that Henrietta Lacks was subjected to was undeniable.

Looking solely at the research involving her cells, Henrietta was denied the right to self-
determination, privacy, and anonymity as a research subject. Henrietta’s cells were taken and
cultured without her knowledge before her tumor was treated, and it wouldn’t be decades after
Henrietta’s death that her descendants would know about this (BBC, 2020). Furthermore, her
identifiers were not eliminated during the research process, failing to protect her and her
descendant’s identities through Henrietta’s DNA (Harvard Online, 2017).

Broadening the perspective into the systemic racism that came into play during Henrietta’s time,
it is also obvious that she was denied fair treatment due to her ethnic background. She traveled
from southern Virginia to get treatment at Johns Hopkins in a segregated ward because not all
hospitals during her time treated black patients, and those who treated black patients segregated
black and poor patients. Decades have passed, and history was repeated when Henrietta’s
children's DNA was taken, distributed, and used in research worldwide without her children’s
full consent. It is noteworthy that Henrietta’s children also do not have good access to healthcare
when their DNA samples were taken (Harvard Online, 2017).

Systemic racism has played a huge role in violating rights as a research subject, not only of
Henrietta Lacks but also of other marginalized individuals. The Tuskegee Study of Untreated
Syphilis, where ethnic research subjects were denied treatment for syphilis to examine disease
progression, the painful experimental gynecological procedures that enslaved African American
ladies endured under Dr. Sims during the 1800s which led to the invention of the vaginal
speculum, and the involvement of thirty-four impoverished African-American and Hispanic boys
in research that produced more risk than benefit are some of the examples where marginalized
groups were subjected to unethical research practices (Baptiste et al., 2022). Systemic racism
persists today as there is still a relationship between systemic racism and negative health
outcomes from COVID-19, and younger Black Americans are more likely to die from COVID-
19 (Franz et al., 2022).
Contemporary Examples of Scientific Misconduct or Unethical Research

1. A study on iron-sensing RNA in 2020 that was retracted after discovering the
manipulation of raw data by the first two authors of the research (Sahoo, 2021)

2. A The Lancet paper regarding the adverse effects of hydroxychloroquine that was
retracted due to data discrepancies (Mehra et al., 2020)

3. A researcher falsified figures, methods, data, results, and conclusions regarding the
effects of various vasoactive agents on the neurologic status of piglets with traumatic
brain injury (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2023)

4. A researcher manipulated research data by reusing images and falsely relabeling data
related to chronic deep tissue conditions in murine models (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 2022)

5. A researcher reused and relabeled images to represent dissimilar experimental instances

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2021)

References

Baptiste, D., Caviness‐Ashe, N., Josiah, N., Commodore‐Mensah, Y., Arscott, J., Wilson, P. R.,
& Starks, S. (2022). Henrietta Lacks and america’s dark history of research involving
African Americans. Nursing Open, 9(5), 2236–2238. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1257 

BBC. (2020). Henrietta Lacks: The “immortal” cells that changed the world. YouTube.
Retrieved July 14, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgB1IqGp8BE.

Franz, B., Parker, B., Milner, A., & Braddock II, J. H. (2022). The relationship between systemic
racism, residential segregation, and racial/ethnic disparities in covid-19 deaths in the
United States. Ethnicity & Disease, 32(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.32.1.31 

Gray, J., Grove, S. K., & Sutherland, S. (2017). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing
research appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. Elsevier. 

Harvard Online. (2017). Introduction to Henrietta Lacks with author Rebecca Skloot. YouTube.

Retrieved July 14, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldnRUtQeryg. 

Mehra, M. R., Desai, S. S., Ruschitzka, F., & Patel, A. N. (2020). Retracted:
Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-
19: A multinational registry analysis. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-
6736(20)31180-6
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2015). Evidence-based practice in nursing and
Healthcare: A guide to best practice (3rd ed.). Wolters Kluwer. 

Sahoo, P. (2021, September 26). NCBS paper retraction: tifr ethics panel finds evidence of image
manipulation. Hindustan Times. Retrieved July 14, 2023, from
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ncbs-paper-retraction-tifr-ethics-panel-finds-
evidence-of-image-manipulation-101631787367852.html.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2021). Case Summary: Wang, Ya. The Office
of Research Integrit. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-wang-ya  

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2022). Case Summary: Leong, Daniel. The
Office of Research Integrity. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-leong-daniel 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2023). Case Summary: Armstead, William
M. The Office of Research Integrity. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-armstead-
william-m