How, if at all, did this justification differ from that made by Tuskegee researchers?

Instructions
Read the lead abatement case study.
Write 1-2 paragraphs addressing one of the questions below and respond to at least one classmates’ post.
In what ways does this study resemble features of the TSUS, and in what ways is it dissimilar?
Could this study have been conducted, as a practical matter, if the families enrolled in the study were more affluent — for example, affluent enough to live in lead-free homes or to hire private lead-testing of their properties?
Is it relevant to the ethical evaluation of this study that most — indeed, almost all — participants probably benefited — i.e., most lived in houses more free from lead than they otherwise would have?
Did the KKI researchers rely on the “background level” of risk of lead poisoning to justify offering less than maximally effective interventions in the course of the study?
How, if at all, did this justification differ from that made by Tuskegee researchers?
Is the informed consent document revealing enough?
What information should researchers be obligated to disclose in this study?
Although regulations govern the elements of disclosure in the research context, is there other information that should be disclosed to prospective research participants?