The Belmont Report was created as an endeavor to summarize the core principles of ethical research identified by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The need for the report emerged after the signing of the National Research Act in 1974 (“The Belmont report,” 1979). Among the tasks set for the Commission, there was the identification of the basic ethical principles underlying behavioral and biomedical research concerning human subjects. Furthermore, the Commission was expected to establish the guidelines that researchers should follow. The discussions about the elements to be included in the report were held in 1976 at the Smithsonian Institution’s Belmont Conference Center (“The Belmont report,” 1979). The main units contained in the report are the margins between biomedical and behavioral research, the core ethical research principles (respect for persons, beneficence, and justice), and the requirements for the principles’ application, including the selection of research subjects, informed consent, and risk/benefit evaluation.
The need for a code of conduct in research is primarily associated with the protection of human participants’ rights. The first codes of conduct emerged in the mid-1900s (“The Belmont report,” 1979). Organizations adopt such codes to ensure that research is carried out in a responsible and proper manner. Codes of conduct are aimed at eliminating the unethical behavior of researchers (van Wee, 2019). The code of conduct helps to arrange the adherence to human rights and evidence-based practice principles (World Health Organization [WHO], 2017). For instance, the WHO (2017) expects researchers to follow the principles of integrity, accountability, independence and impartiality, respect for persons and communities, and professional commitment. In fact, the existence of and adherence to the codes of conduct in research has become such a significant issue that some scholars argue for the implementation of such codes not only for researchers but also for research funders (van Wee, 2019). That way, any attempts to perform the research in an unethical way will be eliminated, leading to the most objective findings that will be beneficial for society.
The distinction between biomedical and behavioral research and the practice of therapy allows singling out the elements that should be reviewed with the purpose of protecting the human subjects of study. On the one hand, there is no clear line between practice and research since in many instances, both processes happen simultaneously, for instance, when research is conducted to assess a therapeutic approach (“The Belmont report,” 1979). On the other hand, the difficulty to see the difference between practice and research lies in the inaccuracy of definitions of terms.
It is common to attribute the term ‘practice’ to those studies the primary aim of which is the promotion of patients’ well-being with a high success expectation rate. Biomedical and behavioral research focuses on establishing a diagnosis or finding preventive therapy or treatment (“The Belmont report,” 1979). Meanwhile, the term ‘practice’ is used to denote a process of testing some hypothesis and making conclusions, which leads to either developing or enhancing the generalizable knowledge disclosed in principles or theories. Typically, research is characterized by a formal protocol that introduces a purpose and a series of procedures devised to meet that purpose. Research and practice may be done simultaneously when the aim of the study is to assess the therapy’s efficacy (“The Belmont report,” 1979). Irrespective of the type and goal of research or practice, they must adhere to the basic ethical principles of respect for persons, justice, and beneficence to be considered as such that have followed the code of conduct.
References
The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. (1979). Web.
Samuel, G., Chubb, J., & Derrick, G. (2021). Boundaries between research ethics and ethical research use in artificial intelligence health research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 16(3), 325-337. Web.
van Wee, B. (2019). The need for a code of conduct for research funders. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25, 1657–1660. Web.
World Health Organization. (2017). Code of conduct for responsible research. Web.
Food, Inc., Produced By Kenner Review
Upon its release, the documentary Food, Inc., produced by Kenner (2008), profoundly impacted society, showing the true realities of food production under the capitalistic conditions of the modern USA. The major objective of the given movie is to investigate the corporate farming business in the USA and factors that are not mentioned by the officials. These include severe damage done to the environment and numerous health and social concerns, such as worsening the quality of life and poor working conditions.
Health Concerns
The first cost is the health of the consumers. One of the examples presented by the documentary is that of Patricia Buck’s son, who was only two years old when he died of an E. coli strain infection after eating in Jack-In-The-Box, a fast-food chain. Another example is many families who cannot afford healthy food across the United States. Fast food remains the monetarily cheapest and most filling option for these households. Moreover, for many individuals, stores that sell healthy foods are unacceptable because of the too high price. In such a way, corporations involved in the business earn money, while ordinary people face a high risk of acquiring severe diseases that would critically deteriorate the quality of their lives.
Social Concerns
Another issue in the food industry is the working conditions at the production plants. These factories, especially meat-processing ones, are filled with illegal immigrant workers with no other income options. Not only that, but the constant fear of deportation roams over the workers who are too afraid to speak about the unsafe environment. For the corporation, employment of the worker without proper documentation can result in a fine, relatively small for their overall fortune. Therefore, it is easy for them to exploit the workers with the working conditions resembling the last century before the major movement to make these plants safe.
Conclusion
Few large corporations have dominated the U.S. food production industry in recent decades, free to establish their standards. The main principle of capitalism is reducing costs to make greater profits and thrive among the competitors by cheapening the prices. As a result, if unchecked, the companies are free to reduce costs, sacrificing ethicality, safety protocols, or other regulations. The documentary shows that corporations might generate benefits disregarding the harm done to communities and their health.
Reference
Kenner, R. (2008). Food Inc. [Film]. Dogwoof Pictures. Participant Media. River Road Entertainment.
The Marks & Spencer Firm’s Customer Segmentation
Geographical Segmentation
Marks & Spencer mainly operates in three global market regions. The United Kingdom (UK) is their primary one, and it “consists of the UK retail business and franchise operations” (Forbes, n.d., para. 1). The other two economic zones of Marks & Spencer are continental Europe and some countries in Asia (Forbes, n.d.). It is noteworthy that the business organization left the Chinese market entirely due to restructuring its approach to international operations (Zhuoqiong, 2018). Marks & Spencer is also gradually losing ground in the domestic economic zone.
Demographic Segmentation
The British customer demographics of Marks & Spencer are similar to those of their direct competitors. It consists of two intersecting groups: high-street consumers and middle-aged ones (Le and Oe, 2020). A necessary clarification is that the latter demographic category is primarily women (Ward, 2018). According to Smith (2022), “the high street is the heart of many English towns and cities” (para. 1). It shows that Marks & Spencer’s target audience is economically diverse yet has a significant proportion of wealthy consumers.
Psychographic Segmentation
Two major psychographic trends were found in the target audience of the discussed clothing and food brand. The first is that Marks & Spencer’s UK consumers prefer old-fashioned and traditional clothing and dressing styles (Le and Oe, 2020). Moreover, brand equity means less to them compared to other consumers of clothing products of the same price and quality bracket (Le and Oe, 2020). It is proof that this business entity has a committed customer base, but they started to develop this direction quite recently.
Behavioral Segmentation
The Marks & Spencer data reveals two particular behaviors prevalent in their UK target audience. The first one is adaptability to online shopping, and the second is the preference for customer support and store shopping; both are directly related to the demographic parameter of age (Ward, 2018). Another interesting detail about their customers is that the average online purchase is around £50 (Statista, 2021). The average order value is likely to increase due to the growing number of online shoppers globally, including in the UK.
Reference List
Forbes (no date) ‘Marks & Spencer’. Web.
Key e-commerce figures of the clothing & home division of Marks & Spencer in the financial year 2020/21 (2021). Web.
Le, L. T. and Oe, H. (2020) ‘An exploratory discussion of a British apparel brand in relation to new markets: Developing actionable recommendations based on network, relationship, and collaboration perspectives’, Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(3), pp. 1660-1675.
Smith, P. (2022) High street retail in the United Kingdom (UK) – Statistics & facts. Web.
Ward, E. B. (2018) ‘Marks and Spencer’: Online shopping experience. E.BarbierWard Blog Post.
Zhuoqiong, W. (2018) ‘M&S completes exit from China’, China Daily, Web.