Reading Lab: Research Lab 2.

Question Responses
The article I evaluated was titled Parachute use to prevent death and major
trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomized controlled
trials. This article assessed the effectiveness in preventing death and major trauma related
to gravitational challenge.
The main point of this article is to establish that there has not been a study of
randomized controlled trials of the parachute and therefore the parachute cannot be said
to effective against gravitational challenge. Though it seems like common sense that a
parachute would be effective in reducing the rate of descent when free falling, this article
states that since the success of parachutes is purely based on observational data, the data
is in fact invalid. The article explains, Observational studies have been tainted by
accusations of data dredging, confounding, and bias (p. 1460). Due to this explanation,
this article suggests the only possible way to observe if parachutes are in fact effective is
by randomized controlled trails. Until these trails are conducted, this article will continue
to support the fact that the parachute is just another example of doctors trying to control
every aspect of our lives. Along with the accusation of doctors being monsters obsessed
with disease and power, this article also indicates the parachute industry as an evil power
due to the billions of dollars accumulated by selling parachutes purely based on the belief
of the efficiency of the product. Essentially this article is advocating against the use and
production of parachutes because of the tainted observational data used to support their
effectiveness when free falling.
Next, some may ask, well why not conduct randomized controlled trails to prove
parachutes are in fact effective? The fact of the matter is it would be very unethical to
perform a randomized study of the effectiveness of parachutes. The article suggests a
double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trail (p. 1460), to obtain reliable
evidence on the effectiveness of parachutes. This is in fact unethical because that would
mean sending subjects out of a plane from a height greater than hundred meters without a
parachute, which would more than likely lead to major trauma or even death. Major
injury or death resulting from an experiment is without a doubt unethical, which is most
likely why these randomized controlled trials have not been conduct nor will they be.
Due to this proposed idea, parachutes effectiveness must remain measured with
observational data. The purpose of needing to perform such an unethical study is unclear,
because most people, including myself, would want a parachute when jumping out of a
plane. The article supports this logic when it explains, . . . under exceptional
circumstances, common sense might be applied when considering the potential risks and
benefits of interventions (p. 1460). The benefit of falling out of a plane with a parachute
is theres a chance the parachute can deploy and help avoid major trauma or death. As for
falling out of a plane without a parachute, the subject is most likely going to experience
major trauma or death.
Third, due to the ethics of the proposed study of randomized controlled trials, I
would go about studying the effectiveness of parachutes in a different way. In order to
keep the study ethical and gather data other than observational, I would use the same
methods as article proposed except for using human subjects. I would create twelve
human like structures constructed of gel and bone like components to simulate a human
body. I would then randomly place twelve parachute backpacks on each subject, six

containing parachutes and six not containing parachutes. The backpacks containing
parachutes would be controlled by a device that enables the experimenter to deploy the
parachutes when deemed necessary. Reaching a height of over a hundred meters in an
aircraft I would then send the twelve subjects out of the plane to take on the gravitational
challenge. Observing the subjects as they free fall out of the aircraft, I would deploy the
parachutes at a distance the average sky driver would. Once all the subjects have landed
on the ground I would then measure the amount of trauma done to each subject. Judging
by the amount of trauma done to the subjects with the parachutes and the ones without, I
would then be able to determine the effectiveness of parachutes. I would assess the
trauma by observing each subject and their damage done to the gel and bone like
material. Giving each subject an injury severity score, I would be able to compare the
injuries to a human since the subjects were in fact human like. After assessing each
subject I would then be able to conclude the effectiveness of parachutes in preventing
major trauma or death.