Introduction
On one of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial walls, there is an inscription that reads, “They (who) seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers…call this a new order. It is not new, and it is not order.” What will be contained in these pages for the most part is not new, but the words are for those who are bolder than those who are brazen enough to think that individuals’ rights for some Americans can be lessened. 

While ethics is the conscience of America, it is The United States Constitution that we entrust with our individual rights, yet in the case of human research subject protection, individual rights have been taken from some citizens, and without due process of law. We must recoup these protections for them, and we must not submit to the level of those who would put upon these individual research subjects as though they were somehow lesser. This covert gash in America’s side has festered long enough, and because most Americans are unaware (23) of this abuse, it does not make it any less shameful. Therefore, it is time that we find the resolve to fight back, and muster what it takes to pass human research subject protection legislation (3). However, it will take a wagon load of voices to stir of those hearts with sensitivity and rumble the callousness in those with an onus to irresponsibility, and who have a propensity to contort the United States Constitution, which is not only unconstitutional, but flagrantly unconscionable.

The purpose of this paper is to show cause for concern in regard to the weakness that exist in Common Rule (1), especially, where there may be deficiencies in human research subject protection, within the areas of social experimentation, non-lethal weapons testing, military human research, and of which there may be joint interest. Moreover, while Legislation is necessary, it should be understood that it would really be a refinement of Constitutional Law. Yes, this paper is about making Common Rule (1) conform with The United States Constitution, which is the people’s document for the protection of individual rights. Therefore, the notion of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and what their function ought to be, rather than what their function is today, will be discussed. In this paper the concept of behavior modification will encompass any technique whether it be surgical, or from radiation, or from electronics, or from any other artificial means that are intended to affect the behavior of an individual. Stolz (6) defines it in relationship to measurement. “Behavior modification practice involves measuring the occurrence of the behavior to be changed and of the desired behavior; many persons believe that the emphasis on measurement is the distinguishing hallmark of behavior modification.” Furthermore, a presentation of informed consent will be portrayed as the bedrock of human research subject protection. Finally, the overall goal of this paper is to educate those readers who are unaware of a subject that is largely unpublicized.