In the past scientists were not that nice to the patients they were studying, lots of past experiments were unethical to today's standards.
in the 1970s scientists came up with a list of rules if you were to experiment on human beings to protect the privacy and security of the human beings being tested on, known as the Belmont report 3 guidelines for experimenting on humans:
1, Respect for persons (meaning they have to know the risks and benefits of the experiment before signing up.
2, Beneficence, is to make sure that they don't have a lasting negative impact on the patients they are studying.
3, Justice, ensuring that subjects are not exploited for the experiments.
Researchers should also ensure that the benefits and the results are distributed fairly.
Classical Conditioning:
In 1920 a psychologist named John Watson wanted to see if humans could be classically conditioned, Classical Conditioning is if you give a stimulus (food) then (saliva) will appear in your mouth, with an unrelated stimulus like a bell sound.
Albert, a 9-YEAR-OLD BABY was the subject, using animals and scary noises, so a fussy white rat was put in front of Albert and when his hands touched the rat, a bell sound would play from a metal bar struck with a hammer from behind his head startling the young baby, eventually, after a while, just the sight of the rat was enough for Albert to start crying, his brain was Conditioned to associate the rat with the loud noises.
This study ironically failed in many ways due to the fact that 1, they used one test subject (normally scientists would have multiple tests and no controls), 2, the ethical issues, such as he did not un-condition Albert from the experiment, so he was permanently affected by the experiment, we do not know if the mother allowed this or she knew about this experiment.
The Monster study (Positive and Negative feedback):
in the late 1930s scientists, Wendell Johnson and student Mary Tudor at the university of Iowa wanted to see the impact of positive and negative feedback when the subjects were learning a language.
How they tested this was they gave positive and negative feedback on speech disorders, well there is a reason why their study is called "The monster study",
Tudor brought 22 children from an orphanage and told them that they would be getting speech therapy, 10 of these children 5 in each group had early signs of stuttering speech, but both groups had children with normal speech patterns,
the first group was told that "they had no stutters and to ignore everyone who criticizes the way they speak".
The second less fortunate group was told that "Yes you do have a stutter and to never speak unless they can do it right", "which is a terrible thing to say to children", the feedback did not affect their stutters, but it did do "wonders" "I mean sarcastically" to their self-esteem, the kids with positive feedback did not lose their stutters but the did be more confident when the spoke.
The other group, well. They were more self-conscious and withdrawn, compared to the other group, for the children it was pretty damaging, also the children were not debriefed after the project was over, meaning that there were most presumably affected long term by this project and this experiment was deemed unethical by the Belmont report.
The Milgram Experiment:
The researcher wanted to see what would happen if he pushed subjects to do things against their morals.
There were 3 separate roles: the researcher who was a person in a white lab coat (was the authority figure), the teacher who was assigned the role of the experimental subject, and the learner (paid actor) (which the issue thought was another volunteer), the authority figure gave word pairing tests and if the person which is the "teacher/subject" got an answer wrong, the subject would think that the learner was being shocked by electricity, the paid actor pretending to be in pain.
Complaining of chest pains, shouting, pounding on the table, and eventually going silent. "As you can probably tell the subject was reasonably alarmed by this", The experiment only ended when the paid actor faked being shocked by 450 volts 3 times in a row.
Milgrim concluded that even under odd circumstances people are still going to obey an authority figure.
The Bystander Effect:
In 1968 John Darley and Bibb Latane of Columbia university wanted to do an experiment to see how people respond to a crisis, this is now named the bystander effect, the experiment goes like this:
A few college students were in a room and were told that they were doing an experiment about the struggles of a college student, and a voice call off what seemed to be the other students (which also tested subjects) one of the students was an audio recording and not a real person, one of the students was saying that they are prone to seizures and while the other students were talking, the seizure prone student (which is in fact not a real as it was the audio recording) was having a seizure, and the John and Bibb wanted to see how long it took until one of the subjects was to get help.
John and Bibb found that if there were more people in the voice call, then the people took longer to take into action that "hey someone is having a seizure".
The subject was less inclined to ask for help as the subject believed that someone else would ask for said help.
This experiment shows that people should get help during a crisis instead of waiting for someone else to do it, and this was deemed unetical by the Belmont report.
The Standford Prison Experiment:
One study was considered so damaging to the subjects, that it had to be ended early.
In 1971 Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist at Standford University wanted to see how people placed in certain roles affected people's behavior.
So Philip decided to simulate a prison, and he cast the subjects as guards and prisoners.
24 white male college students were recruited to the study and separated into two groups, prisoners and guards, Philip acted as the prison superintendent (aka the prison warden).
The prisoners were searched and given ID numbers instead of names to dehumanize the prisoners.
The Prison guards "which I will just call guards from now on", were given police batons and were given orders "whatever it takes to maintain order", giving the guards power and a sense of superiority over the prisoners.
The study was meant to go for two weeks but was canceled only after six days, due to the fact that the conditions in the prison went down very fast, and one of the prisoners had to be released from the study earlier than the project was intended to go on for.
Other prisoners started a riot because the guards treated them so badly, after the riot the guards became more violent and the prisoners got many physical punishments, Zimbardo concluded that the subjects had internalized their roles and made them part of them.
The prisoners became submissive while the guards became more aggressive and abused their power, Zimbardo also allowed the guards to subject the prisoners to severe abuse which may have caused them to have permanent harm.
This was definitely not allowed at our current time, due to it being contradicted by the Belmont report.