Highest Five

Men’s Magazine

Subscribe to Highest Five
May 13, 2009

Project MK-ULTRA: The CIA’s Program of Research in Behavioural Modification

From 1953 until the early 1970’s, Project MK-ULTRA was the CIA’s code name for a mind-control research program run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence. Their purpose was to study mind-control, interrogation methods and behaviour modification. In order to manipulate mental states and alter brain function, doctors administered various types of drugs such as LSD, mescaline, heroin, morphine, psilocybin, scopolamine, marijuana, alcohol, and sodium pentothal, usually without the subject’s awareness or consent.

Experiments were tested on CIA employees, military personnel, doctors, government agents, prostitutes, members of the public and mentally ill patients [source].

Research and goals for the project included:
• Substances which would enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called “brain-washing”.
• Substances which would promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.
• Materials and physical methods which would produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.
• Substances which would produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.
• A material which would cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence would find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Committee on Human Resources. August 3, 1977. Retrieved on 2007-08-22.

In 1964, the project was renamed MK-SEARCH. This project attempted to create a “perfect truth drug” which could then be used to interrogate suspected Soviet spies during the Cold War.

In 1973, CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MK-ULTRA files be destroyed. A full investigation of MK-ULTRA will therefore never be possible.

Project MK-ULTRA was the inspiration behind The Manchurian Candidate.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Led by famous psychologist Philip Zimbardo, the Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted in 1971, was executed in order to show how roles define behaviour. Zimbardo tried to demonstrate that prison guards and convicts would behave in ways they thought was required. Participants were offered $15 per day and the study was to last two weeks.

Twenty-four male subjects, considered to be most mentally and emotionally stable, were chosen. Zimbardo divided the participants evenly into guards and prisoners, at random. He himself was going to take on the role of prison warden. The guards were given one rule: no physical punishment allowed, but other than that, they were able to run the prison as they see fit. The guards were outfitted in military attire and sunglasses and also provided batons. The prisoners, in contrast, were dressed in smocks and refused permission to wear underwear.

Prisoners were only to be addressed by their identity numbers and also had a small chain around one ankle. On the first day of the experiment, prisoners were instructed to stay at home and wait to be ‘called’ for the start of the experiment. Their homes were raided by the real Paolo Alto police, they were charged with armed-robbery, read their rights and had their fingerprints and mug shots taken. They were strip-searched and taken to the basement of Stanford: ‘the mock prison’.

The guards were brutal, humiliating and demoralizing to the prisoners. By the second day prisoners were already revolting, wanting to be let out. Zimbardo and his colleagues were also beginning to be affected by the experiment, trying to keep the revolting prisoner subjects in detention and siding with guards.
On the sixth day, Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D., (also the fiancée of Zimbardo), was brought in to interview the guards and prisoners. She was stunned by what she saw and demanded that the experiment be terminated. Apparently, Maslach was the only person to even raise any concerns out of the fifty external visitors that had come to examine the experiment.
Zimbardo certainly managed to prove his theory, revealing a disturbing truth about the potential for evil that lies in human nature.

Aversion Therapy for Curing Homosexuality

Aversion therapy is a psychiatric treatment where a patient is exposed to a stimulus while simultaneously being subjected to some form of discomfort (the therapy undergone by Stanley Kubrick’s twisted character Alex DeLarge in the 1971 classic, A Clockwork Orange). Used in order to ‘cure’ homosexuality, it was only in 2006 that aversion therapy to treat homosexuality was considered to be a violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 1962, 29 year old Captain Billy Clegg-Hill of the Royal Tank Regiment, was arrested in a police swoop in Southampton and sentenced to six months of aversion therapy. After three days of therapy, he died. Doctors and authorities covered up his death, claiming he died of “natural causes”. But thirty four years after his death, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem confirmed that he had actually died from a coma and convulsions resulting from injections of apomorphine, a potent vomit-inducing drug. Doctor’s would show Clegg-Hill pin-up pictures of men, then inject him with apomorphine, causing him to become violently ill. The doctor’s believed that he would eventually associate men with nausea and vomiting. The idea of homosexuality would be so repugnant that he would subsequently become straight.

In 1965, 19 year old Peter Price was sent to a psychiatric hospital to treat his homosexuality. Doctors forced him to lie in a bed filled with his own vomit, urine and feces for three days while they would show him images of half-naked men, inject him with drugs and play tapes telling him he was a ‘dirty queer’. He was also administered electric shocks, while being shown erotic pictures of attractive men.

The Monster Study

Dubbed the ‘monster study’, the experiment was conducted by speech expert Wendell Johnson, led in part by graduate student Mary Tudor Jacobs in 1939. Johnson believed that stuttering was a learned behavior, attributed to outside factors such as constant criticism from a parent to its child for even the slightest speech imperfections. 22 orphan children with no prior speech impediment were chosen for the experiment. Wendell’s goal was to induce the disorder in orphans.

One group of orphans received praise for positive speech therapy whereas the other group was belittled, badgered and told they were stutterers. By the end of the study, none of the test subjects in the negative therapy group became stutterers, but the experience caused them low self-esteem and irreparable damage.

Little Albert

In order to determine whether fear was innate or a conditioned response, father of behaviorism, John Watson, used a nine month old orphan he nicknamed Little Albert to test his theory. Watson began the experiment by placing Little Albert in the middle of a room. A white laboratory rat was placed near Albert, who was allowed to play with it. Albert was not scared.

For two months he was exposed to various things without any sort of conditioning; a white rabbit, a monkey, masks etc… Watson placed Albert in a room again with the rat, however this time, when Albert would touch the rat, Watson would make loud sounds behind him, such as the striking of a steel bar with a hammer. When this occurred, Albert would get frightened and begin to cry. Watson continued to do this until eventually, Albert became very distressed whenever exposed to the rat. Eventually, Albert associated anything fluffy or white with the loud noise. Little Albert was never desensitized to his fear and was released from the hospital before Watson was able to do so.


31 Comments

  • Posted by krisba at 2:00pm on 13:05:09

    I’m really surprised not to see Stanley Milgram’s obedience study on this list! It’s probably the grand-daddy of unethical psychology experiments.

  • Posted by dsaa at 4:13pm on 13:05:09

    How was Milgram’s experiment extremely unethical? Nobody was directly hurt. THe only harm was psychological damage to the participants when they realized they were no better than nazis.

  • Posted by BennyDacks at 4:14pm on 13:05:09

    Crazy stuff. I’ve read about MK-Ultra before. Wasn’t Tim Leary a consultant to the doctors? I’ve heard LSD played a big role in the uncovering of psychological conditioning.

  • Posted by alphamale11 at 6:05pm on 13:05:09

    Is there any wonder why the government of the United States is considered hypocritical and as savage as any 3rd world brutal dictatorship.

  • Posted by Yonce at 7:57pm on 13:05:09

    Albert wasn’t an orphan. His mom was a wet nurse at the hospital and when she found out what Watson was doing to her son she took him away.

  • Posted by koncept at 8:28pm on 13:05:09

    the stanford prison experiment wasnt THAT bad. homes were not ‘raided’ they simply just walked up and put them in the patrol car.

    i cant believe milgrams experiment wasnt on this list though. for those interested, it was an experiment conducted to look at how people will follow ‘authority’ against their own inner judgment. people were told to shock another human if they made a mistake on a test. google it for more info. its quite interesting.

  • Posted by Freudian Slip at 9:54pm on 13:05:09

    I think the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and the Milgrim Obedience Study both belong on here.

    dssa, The Milgrim experiment would never be allowed to be performed today due to ethical issues. As a psych major you learn about it as a case study of what is unethical.

  • Posted by drgreedy at 11:47pm on 13:05:09

    How is Milgram’s obedience experiment unethical? He told people to administer a shock (that wasn’t real) and they did.

    The Tuskegee Syphilis experiement was not a psychology experiment so that should not be on here either.

    John Money’s experiment (treatment) of David Reimer – “the boy who lived as a girl” and who later committed suicide should be on here as well.

  • Posted by super tonga at 12:22am on 14:05:09

    and the greatest unethical experiment of all time is life itself

  • Posted by Frankiidoodle at 9:33am on 14:05:09

    Alex DeLarge was Anthony Burgess’s character, not Kubrick’s.

  • Posted by bobsgiantturd at 10:10am on 14:05:09

    Unethical medical studies! LOL!

  • Posted by stanley at 11:53am on 14:05:09

    you wanna know why the stanley milgram studies are considered unethical? have you ever seen the full length recordings of the experiments? many people had mental breakdowns, they believed that they killed somebody. you have to realize that you are less sensitized to violence compared to people in 1961. have you seen how psychotically violent a few people became? one man followed directions with glee, happily shocking the “victim” over and over upping the voltage with fervor and yelling at him.

    granted, i don’t think that it’s the most unethical psych experiment ever, but it definitely is the grand daddy of psych experiment horror. it deserves at least an honorable mention.

  • Posted by Mary at 12:21pm on 14:05:09

    When I chose not to include the Milgram study to this list, my decision was based on the fact that no one was physically harmed during the course of the experiment. Moreover, in the research I came across, there was no mention of long-term emotional distress or psychological damage to the subjects. I do agree that I should have mentioned the study at the very least, and I thank those who pointed this out and provided further insight. The study would be considered wholly unethical by today’s standards and really goes to show a twisted side of human nature.

  • Posted by james at 12:48pm on 14:05:09

    Milgram’s study had some excellent ethical considerations. participants were well debriefed and given counselling. They were followed up and almost all reported being glad they had taken part.

  • Posted by sportpsyc at 1:56pm on 14:05:09

    This is rediculous. You state you didn’t include the Milgram study becasue no one was directly hurt. Little Albert was not directly hurt, and in fact, the conditioned response eventually faded when no lopnger paired with the unconditioned stimulus. Who was directly hurt in the Stanford prison study? Yes, the Milgram participants were debriefed, but they did NOT say they liked being in the study. Several of the participants, who were forced to realize that they were able to administer electrical shock to the point of killing a human being (in this case a confederate), simply by being influenced by an authority figure. This realization caused major pscyhological damage, and several actually SUED, becasue they were not given informed consent when they agreed to participate. It was this study alone that changed the rules for studys using human subjects. It is listed in every psychology 101 text as being the pinicale of unethical studies in psychology. Besides that, it is a very interesting experiement that readers are fascinated by, so from all aspects, it was a bad call not to include it.

  • Posted by Logan at 4:35pm on 14:05:09

    @sportpsyc
    To be honest, I’m glad Milgram’s wasn’t on the list. It’s talked about far more than any of the ones listed and it was nice to see some I haven’t already been acquainted with.

    Also, little albert WAS directly hurt. Sure, not physically (as if that’s the only kind of pain people feel. For someone who’s arguing about psychology the fact that you missed this is r”i”diculous. The fact that the pain wasn’t permanent is pretty irrelevant) but emotionally. He also didn’t give the scientist consent for plainly obvious reasons.

    The title also didn’t say “The Most Unethical” anyways. Just says 5 experiments. If Milgram’s was there then it’d be 6. Stop me if the math gets to technical…

  • Posted by hateater at 11:02pm on 14:05:09

    Just wanted to throw out there that i have a friend who works with the oregon something rather, and he has an interesting job. They perform psych tests on abused children, such as putting a locked box in an empty room with a child.. tell the child there is a great prize in there, and give them a key ring with 100 keys on it and give them 60 seconds to open it. the key ring does not have the key to open the box on it. In another fun one, he dresses as a mutant lizard and kneels in front of children… waiting for them to freak out.. they call it finding the apex of fear. fun!

  • Posted by Disgusted at 11:19pm on 14:05:09

    Honestly, I think a lot of people get too bent out of shape about the ethics of the Milgram experiments. Obviously he caused people some distress, but as many have said here he took time to fully debrief and follow up with the “teachers”, and while many felt uncomfortable because of their responses they also said it was an interesting and useful experiment. Compare that with the CIA and aversion therapy, and the difference should be clear.

  • Posted by TiredofMORONS at 10:52am on 15:05:09

    The Milgram experiments only showed human’s unethical nature. Quit saying the experiment itself was unethical, you fools.

  • Posted by Charlezzzzzz at 12:37pm on 15:05:09

    Milgram’s experiment shouldn’t be on this list. The results were faked. They weren’t actually shocked, they were just pretending to be.

  • Posted by Anatoliy at 12:53am on 20:05:09

    @sportpsyc
    You’re saying the Milgram experiment is unethical because people discovered they’re sick and demented beings, and then sued because of it? That’s complete crap, those people were responsible for their own actions. If they’re horrified by the fact that they could have killed someone maybe they should have though about what they were doing. People like to use this psychological crap as an excuse for their actions, saying they were merely following orders, but they should be directly held responsible.

  • Posted by B Nelson at 1:46pm on 08:06:09

    And we think Nazis held cruel experiments, these are insane!

  • Posted by darkstar at 2:10am on 18:06:09

    The Milgram Experiment definitely had some very unethical issues. You’re supposed to weigh the risk with the benefits. The risk far outweighed the benefits. And there were many more ethical ways to study the exact same theory.

    Also, to whoever said the Prison experiment wasn’t unethical, you need to see the original recordings. So many of the prisoners were emotionally crippled. Many of them suffered form long term PTSD and other anxiety related disorders.

    And, on the topic of Little Albert: the synopsis provided said nothing about Spontaneous Regeneration of the conditioned response. It’s been proven that people that are conditioned to a stimulus witha certain response can randomly display the conditioned response long after extinction.
    And another issue with it was the fact that the conditioned response generalized to anything that resembled the animal used for the unconditioned stimulus. At one point Little Albert was even scared by a researchers head because it was “white and fluffy”

  • Posted by anonymous at 2:28am on 29:06:09

    the first thing that came to mind is the milgram experiement, where is it?

  • Posted by pinpower at 5:53am on 29:06:09

    Milgrams should not neccesarily been on the list. Yeah its pretty unethical but nowhere near as bad as some people are making out (and making far too big a deal about…seriously…). Nobody was physically hurt, participants were debriefed and they werent forced to do anything, they were asked and “persuaded” (“the experiment requires you continue” and stuff like that). Yeah it was unethical as they were paid, there was an amount of deception and they briefly thought another participant was being shocked but it was nowhere near as bad as you make out.

    Also, the experiment told us a hell of a lot about human nature and the effects of/peoples reactions to authority. Was especially relevant at the time, not THAT long after the second world war and just months after the trial of a number of Nazi war criminals.

  • Posted by Scled1007 at 11:08pm on 04:07:09

    Shoot, the U.S. can’t even begin to touch the experiments that the Nazis and Japanese performed. Go look up T4, or Japans occupancy in northern china during WW 2 with all the crazy plague and bio weapons testing… then come back. I mention these, because they weren’t just physical experiments, they would also induce various mental states to see if could be a catalyst for death.

  • Posted by Prodnose at 4:50pm on 03:09:09

    Put on a white coat, and you can do absolutely anything you like, if you tell people that it is in the cause of science and advancement.

  • Posted by Brooklynn at 9:57pm on 09:02:10

    1. Little Albert WAS and orphan
    2. No one knows whether or not he was reconditioned because he was adopted and never heard from again.
    3. The Stanford Prison Study caused severe psychological damage causing them to stop the study eight days earlier than expected.

    L2 Psychology

Comment this article





About Us

Highest Five covers topics other men’s magazines don’t (or can’t), offering articles for the explorative, creative, and capable male mind.

If there’s a topic you would like us to cover, you feel like saying hello, or you’d like to write for us, let us know.

Read more...