Literally everyone who has ever had to take a medical or scientific ethics course knows this, since the IRB process was born specifically from this horrific abuse of science.
I'm guessing most high schools cover it in US History and/or World History, also, as mine did.
My post was just a question as to the overall percentage. Not whether there were any Americans who knew about the experiments.
Apparently asking questions and being inquisitive is bad now.
Society is a complex system. The west has soft censorship via control systems.
If you can't see any now, that is fine. But we can deduct they exist from logic.
Here's an example: We can recognize the old ones. US newspapers and schools had effective censorship of, for example, the struggle of gay people in the US. The struggle was there, but it wasn't talked about. No matter the mechanisms to achieve this, it is effective soft censoring. While this doesn't exist anymore, it would be unreasonable to think we don't have similar blind sides now (I see plenty, but... that is neither here nor there, I'm going off logic)
I mean, what percentage of US students would recognize the Tuskegee experiments continued until 1972? I've had many people straight up tell me that is a lie, or a 'conspiracy theory'. In fact, I think this post will get down voted, despite asking a perfectly valid question and having concrete factual examples.
Not saying it isn't appalling that Leica is apologizing. Thought it makes sense from a business perspective.
I'm just curious to know what is more effective: the soft censorship of the west created by unwritten social norms or the hard censorship of the east?