Topic Library — Prisoners as Research Subjects (Year 1 Foundations)

School: Minister Destiny Testimony Schools Track: Adult Class: Topic Library — Year 1 (Foundations) Founded and presented by: Muslim Ordained Minister Destiny Marie Morgan

This lesson is educational information, Massachusetts-first, and is not legal advice and not medical advice. It teaches history, ethics, and the federal regulation in general terms. If you are in danger right now, call 911. If you have a real case, talk to a lawyer — legal aid organizations help many people for free.

Before you start

This school never asks your name. Your progress is saved only in your own browser on this device — the school collects and keeps nothing. If you pass this unit's quiz (80% or higher, retakes allowed), you earn a downloadable certificate with a blank line — you write your own name on it after you save it. Quiz answers are not shown; if you miss a question, re-read the lesson and try again.
Destiny's question for this unit was direct: why are prisons using inmates as subjects for less time served? This unit answers it from the record — the history of how people in prison were used in research, the scandal-driven reforms that followed, the exact federal rules that now govern it, and the sentence-credit question untangled into its three real pieces. The short answer, proved in Part 4: under today's federal rules, research participation may not buy time, and parole boards are forbidden to count it.
Language in this unit is people-first and clinical. Historical abuses are described factually, without sensational detail, because the people subjected to them were people.

The lesson

Part 1. Why researchers used people in prison — the ethical problem stated plainly

For much of the twentieth century, American researchers ran studies inside prisons on a large scale: drug trials, dermatology patch tests, vaccine and infection studies, nutrition and psychology experiments. The reasons were stated openly at the time, and students should hear them plainly, because they are the ethical problem itself. A prison offered researchers a captive population that could not leave, living on controlled schedules, eating controlled diets, available for follow-up over long periods, at low cost. Participants were also easy to recruit: people in prison had few sources of income and few choices, so small payments — money that would be trivial outside — were powerful inside.

Hold the two truths of this history together, because the whole unit stands on them. Some of this research produced real medical knowledge, and some participants volunteered sincerely, including from patriotic or altruistic motives. And the setting itself compromised consent: a person whose food, work, medical care, privileges, and hopes for release are all controlled by the same institution that hosts the study cannot say no — or yes — with the freedom the ethics of research requires. That is why the law that eventually emerged does not ask whether a particular prisoner "seemed willing." It treats people in prison as a protected class and surrounds any research with structural safeguards, taught in Part 4.

Part 2. Two histories every student should know — Stateville and Holmesburg

Stateville, Illinois (1940s). During the Second World War, malaria was disabling American troops in the Pacific, and the supply of quinine — then the standard treatment — had been cut off. The University of Chicago, working with the U.S. Army and the State Department, ran malaria studies at Stateville Penitentiary near Joliet, Illinois, beginning in 1944: hundreds of prisoners were deliberately infected with malaria so that experimental antimalarial drugs could be tested. The work contributed to the development of antimalarial drugs and was publicly praised at the time, including in national magazines. Then it entered world history: at the Nuremberg Medical Trial after the war, defense lawyers for Nazi doctors cited the American prison malaria experiments to argue their clients' work was no different — and the American prosecution's expert, Dr. Andrew Ivy, answered by pointing to the consent he said Stateville participants had given, a distinction that helped shape the Nuremberg Code and its central rule that a research subject's voluntary consent is absolutely essential. Historians note the tension honestly: the Stateville program was itself criticized as coercive — participation was associated with sentence considerations and other inducements — and it continued for years after Nuremberg.

Holmesburg, Philadelphia (1951–1974). Dr. Albert Kligman, a dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, began work at Holmesburg Prison in 1951, invited to treat an outbreak of athlete's foot. He later described what he saw on arriving, in words quoted in the historical record: "acres of skin." Over 23 years, his program ran hundreds of studies for pharmaceutical companies and government agencies — patch tests of cosmetics, soaps, detergents, and experimental drugs; studies that deliberately exposed participants to fungal and viral infections; dioxin studies funded by Dow Chemical; and work for the Department of Defense. Participants were paid sums that were small outside prison and significant inside it, in a facility whose population was predominantly Black. The program was not secret — it published research and built Kligman's career, including the discovery behind the acne and wrinkle treatment Retin-A, from which he earned substantial royalties. It ended in 1974 amid national reassessment of prison research. The reckoning came in layers: Allen Hornblum's 1998 book Acres of Skin documented the program for the public; a federal lawsuit brought by more than 300 former participants was dismissed in the early 2000s; and in 2022 the City of Philadelphia formally apologized for its role, and the University of Pennsylvania apologized as well — both a matter of public record.

Part 3. The turn — exposés, the National Research Act, and the Belmont Report

The modern system was built in one decade, in reaction to what the public learned. Through the early 1970s, journalists and congressional hearings exposed prison research programs and other abuses — most famously the Tuskegee syphilis study, revealed in 1972, in which treatment was withheld from Black men for decades. Congress answered with the National Research Act of 1974, which created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and charged it with identifying the ethical principles that should govern all human research and the rules for research on prisoners specifically.

The Commission's best-known product is the Belmont Report — formally, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research — published in the Federal Register on April 18, 1979. It states three principles that still organize research ethics today. Respect for persons: people are autonomous agents entitled to make their own decisions, and people with diminished autonomy — the report names prisoners expressly — are entitled to protection; its practical application is informed consent. Beneficence: research must minimize possible harms and maximize possible benefits; its application is a careful assessment of risks and benefits. Justice: the burdens and benefits of research must be distributed fairly — no group should be selected as subjects merely because it is convenient, confined, or easy to manipulate; its application is fair selection of subjects. The Belmont Report is an ethics document, not a statute — but the binding rules in Part 4 were built to enforce its principles.

Part 4. The rules as they stand — 45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart C, and the time-served answer in the regulation's own words

The binding federal rules for research involving prisoners conducted or supported by the Department of Health and Human Services are at 45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart C (§§ 46.301–46.306), first issued November 16, 1978. In substance:

Who counts, and why. A "prisoner" is any individual involuntarily confined or detained in a penal institution, including people detained pending trial or sentencing (§ 46.303(c)). The subpart's stated purpose (§ 46.302) is that prisoners "may be under constraints because of their incarceration which could affect their ability to make a truly voluntary and uncoerced decision whether or not to participate as subjects in research."

The gatekeeper. Every study must be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), and for prisoner research the IRB must meet extra requirements (§ 46.304): a majority of the board (apart from prisoner members) must have no association with the prison involved, and at least one member must be a prisoner, or a prisoner representative with appropriate background and experience.

Only narrow categories are permitted at all (§ 46.306(a)(2)): (i) study of the causes, effects, and processes of incarceration and criminal behavior, at no more than minimal risk and inconvenience; (ii) study of prisons as institutions or of prisoners as incarcerated persons, also minimal risk only; (iii) research on conditions particularly affecting prisoners as a class — the regulation's own examples include hepatitis research and research on alcoholism, drug addiction, and sexual assault — with added expert consultation and published Federal Register notice; and (iv) research on practices with the intent and reasonable probability of improving the subject's own health or well-being, with the same added safeguards where control groups may not benefit.

The inducement rule and the parole rule — Destiny's question, answered verbatim. Section 46.305(a) lists the findings an IRB must make before approving any prisoner research. Two of them govern incentives, and this unit quotes them exactly as verified against the current text on ecfr.gov on October 21, 2026:

§ 46.305(a)(2): "Any possible advantages accruing to the prisoner through his or her participation in the research, when compared to the general living conditions, medical care, quality of food, amenities and opportunity for earnings in the prison, are not of such a magnitude that his or her ability to weigh the risks of the research against the value of such advantages in the limited choice environment of the prison is impaired."

§ 46.305(a)(6): "Adequate assurance exists that parole boards will not take into account a prisoner's participation in the research in making decisions regarding parole, and each prisoner is clearly informed in advance that participation in the research will have no effect on his or her parole."

Read together with (a)(3) — the risks must be ones nonprisoner volunteers would accept — (a)(4) — subject selection must be fair and immune from arbitrary intervention by authorities or other prisoners — and (a)(5) — information must be presented in language the population understands — the structure is unmistakable: advantages may not grow large enough to bend a decision, and participation may not touch parole at all. A study that offered time off a sentence in exchange for participation could not be approved under this subpart.

Part 5. "Less time served" untangled — the three real pieces

Destiny's question survives because three different things are easily confused. This Part separates them.

Piece one: historical inducements — real, and documented. In the era of Parts 1–2, participation in research was rewarded with money, better food and housing, privileges — and, in documented programs including Stateville's era, sentence considerations: cooperation was associated in that period's record with favorable treatment toward release, and at least one famous Stateville participant's parole advocacy pointed to his research service. This is the kernel of truth in the question: it happened, in a system with no Subpart C.

Piece two: what the rules now forbid. Under § 46.305(a)(6), for HHS-conducted or -supported research, parole boards must not take participation into account, and participants must be told in advance that participation has no effect on parole. Under (a)(2), even non-parole advantages are capped by the impairment test. "Less time served for being a research subject" is not a loophole in the current federal research rules; it is the specific transaction the rules were written to prevent.

Piece three: the lawful look-alike — earned-time and good-time credits. Most prison systems run a separate, lawful system in which people earn credit toward their sentences for work, education, and program participation — classes, vocational training, and rehabilitative programs, under sentencing and corrections law that varies by state and by the federal system. That system is real, and it is not research: a person taking classes to earn credit is a student in a corrections program, not a subject in an experiment, and no IRB approval or consent-to-be-studied is involved. Students should never confuse the two systems — and should recognize that when a headline says people in prison "earn time," it is almost always describing this third piece, education and work credit, not research participation. The White County story in the Cases & Codes section is the cautionary exception: a modern attempt to tie sentence credit to a medical procedure, and what happened to it.

Part 6. The ethics today — both arguments, attributed, neither settled here

Subpart C ended the old system, but bioethicists still debate where the line should sit, and this school teaches the debate even-handedly, with each position attributed to its holders — the school's voice settles neither.

The protection argument, held by many research ethicists and prisoner advocates, runs: consent inside a prison can never be fully free, because freedom is the currency — any benefit offered to a person who has almost nothing carries coercive weight, and § 46.305(a)(2)'s own "limited choice environment" language concedes the point. On this view, tight restriction is not paternalism; it is the only honest response to a setting where the state controls both the offer and the person's whole life.

The access argument, made by other bioethicists — including contributors to the Institute of Medicine's 2006 report on ethical considerations for research involving prisoners — and by some prisoner advocates, runs: near-total exclusion has its own injustice. Prisoners are largely shut out of beneficial research, including trials for conditions that affect them heavily; exclusion can disrespect the autonomy of people who wish to volunteer and can leave their health needs unstudied. On this view, the remedy is better safeguards around participation, not exclusion from it.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the same debate surfaced publicly over whether people in prison should be included in vaccine research and early access — inclusion argued on both protection and access grounds. What a student should carry away is the structure, not a side: the question is what voluntary can mean where a person's choices are already constrained — and that is the question Belmont's respect-for-persons principle forces every generation to answer again.

Words to know — Prisoners as Research Subjects

Research subject — a person who participates in a study designed to produce generalizable knowledge, as distinct from a patient receiving care or a student taking a class.
Informed consent — a person's voluntary agreement to participate after receiving understandable information about a study's purpose, risks, benefits, and alternatives, with the right to decline or withdraw.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) — the independent board that must review and approve human-subjects research and make the findings the regulations require.
Prisoner representative — the IRB member Subpart C requires to be a prisoner or a representative with appropriate background and experience to serve in that capacity.
Subpart C — the part of 45 C.F.R. Part 46 (§§ 46.301–46.306) adding special protections for research involving prisoners.
Belmont Report — the 1979 report stating the three principles of research ethics: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.
Coercion — pressure that undermines a free choice; in research ethics, an advantage so large in a limited-choice environment that it impairs a person's weighing of risks.
Protected class (research) — a population the regulations single out for additional safeguards because its circumstances can compromise voluntary consent.
Parole — supervised release from prison before a sentence is fully served, decided by a parole board.
Earned-time / good-time credit — sentence credit awarded under corrections law for work, education, or program participation — a system separate from research.

Myths vs facts — Prisoners as Research Subjects

Myth: People in prison today can earn time off their sentence by volunteering for experiments. Fact: Under 45 C.F.R. § 46.305(a)(6), parole boards must not take research participation into account, and participants must be told in advance that participation has no effect on parole. Time credits people earn today come from the separate work-and-education credit system.
Myth: The Holmesburg experiments were a secret program nobody knew about. Fact: They were conducted openly for 23 years, published research, and were funded by named companies and government agencies. The scandal is that it was ordinary.
Myth: Any study can be done on prisoners if the person signs a consent form. Fact: Subpart C permits only four narrow categories of research, requires an IRB with a prisoner representative, and requires seven specific findings before approval.
Myth: The Belmont Report is a law researchers can be prosecuted under. Fact: It is an ethics report. Its principles were given force by binding regulations, including 45 C.F.R. Part 46.
Myth: Because the old experiments were wrong, all research involving prisoners is banned. Fact: It is narrowly permitted under strict conditions — and ethicists still debate, on both protection and access grounds, where the line should sit.

Think it through — Prisoners as Research Subjects

The situation: A relative in prison writes that a university team is recruiting inside his facility for a study of a hepatitis treatment, and a flyer in his unit says participants will "be looked on favorably at parole time." He asks you whether to sign up and whether the flyer is legal.

Walk it through: (1) The topic itself can be legitimate — Part 4: research on conditions particularly affecting prisoners as a class, with hepatitis as the regulation's own example, is a permitted category under § 46.306(a)(2)(iii), with expert consultation and Federal Register notice. (2) The flyer's promise is the red flag — Part 4 and Part 5: § 46.305(a)(6) requires adequate assurance that parole boards will not take participation into account, and that each prisoner be told in advance participation will have no effect on parole. A recruitment flyer promising favorable parole treatment describes the exact transaction the rule forbids. (3) His decision is his own, made on the study's real information — Part 3's informed consent: purpose, risks, benefits, alternatives, the right to decline or withdraw without penalty. (4) His practical step, and yours: he can raise the flyer through the facility grievance process and the study's IRB contact listed on the consent form, and you can keep this unit's citation — grievances and IRB complaints are the channels the system itself provides, and Part 5's piece two is the rule to quote.

Cases & codes to study — Prisoners as Research Subjects

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1942)

The facts: Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act required sterilization of people convicted three times of felonies involving "moral turpitude" — but exempted white-collar offenses such as embezzlement. Jack Skinner, convicted once of stealing chickens and twice of robbery, faced sterilization under it.
The question: Does a sterilization law that applies to some offenses and not to similar ones violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The ruling and the outcome: Yes — unanimously, on June 1, 1942, the Court struck the Act down. Procreation is a fundamental right, and a law that sterilizes a chicken thief but not an embezzler draws a line the Constitution does not permit.
Why it matters to you: Skinner is the Court's great warning about state power over the bodies of people convicted of crimes — the direct ancestor of the consent principles in this unit.
📄 Court document: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/316/535 (the opinion, via Cornell Law Institute)

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1927)

The facts: Virginia's eugenics law authorized the compulsory sterilization of people the state labeled "feebleminded." Carrie Buck, a young woman committed to a state institution, challenged the order for her sterilization.
The question: Does a state compulsory-sterilization statute violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The ruling and the outcome: No, 8–1, on May 2, 1927. The Court upheld the statute — a decision now taught honestly as this unit teaches it: Buck v. Bell has never been formally overruled, and it is broadly condemned; Skinner cut against its logic fifteen years later, and later disability-rights law has repudiated the worldview it rested on.
Why it matters to you: Buck shows why "the court once allowed it" is never the end of an ethics question — and why this school names it a repudiated precedent rather than a safe one.
📄 Court document: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200 (the opinion, via Cornell Law Institute)

The White County, Tennessee standing order (2017) — a document study, not a Supreme Court case

The facts: In May 2017, Judge Sam Benningfield of White County, Tennessee issued a standing order offering a 30-day jail credit to men who obtained a vasectomy and to women who received a contraceptive implant (Nexplanon), provided free.
The question it raised: May a judge trade days of a person's sentence for a medical decision about that person's own reproduction?
The outcome: After national criticism — the ACLU of Tennessee called the order unconstitutional coercion, noting that a "choice" priced in jail days is not much of a choice for a person behind bars — the judge rescinded the order on July 26, 2017 (people who had already signed up kept the promised credit), and in November 2017 the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded him. Per the public record in later litigation, dozens of people had undergone the procedures while the order stood.
Why it matters to you: This is Destiny's question in modern dress — and its ending is the system's answer. The research rules forbid the trade in studies; White County shows courts and regulators rejecting the same trade outside them.
📄 Document: https://www.aclu-tn.org/press-releases/white-county-judge-rescinds-order-coercing-sterilization-and-birth-control/ (ACLU of Tennessee, July 27, 2017 — the rescission, with links to the standing order and the rescinding order)

The law itself — read the real words

45 C.F.R. § 46.302 (Code of Federal Regulations) — the purpose clause: prisoners' incarceration "could affect their ability to make a truly voluntary and uncoerced decision." Read it: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46/subpart-C
45 C.F.R. § 46.304 (Code of Federal Regulations) — the IRB for prisoner research must include a prisoner or prisoner representative, and a majority must have no association with the prison. Read it: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46/subpart-C
45 C.F.R. § 46.305(a) (Code of Federal Regulations) — the seven findings, including (a)(2)'s inducement limit and (a)(6)'s parole rule quoted in Part 4. Read it: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46/subpart-C
45 C.F.R. § 46.306(a)(2) (Code of Federal Regulations) — the four permitted categories of prisoner research. Read it: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46/subpart-C

Where to read the real thing, free: ecfr.gov (https://www.ecfr.gov), CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com), supremecourt.gov (https://www.supremecourt.gov), HHS Office for Human Research Protections (https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp).

Try this — Prisoners as Research Subjects

☐ Quote § 46.305(a)(6) from memory, then check your wording against the eCFR text.
☐ Sort six scenarios into Part 5's three pieces: historical inducement, forbidden trade, or lawful earned-time credit.
☐ Read the Belmont Report's three principles on the HHS site and match each principle to the Subpart C provision that enforces it.
☐ Write one paragraph explaining the difference between a research subject and a student earning education credit.
☐ State the protection argument and the access argument from Part 6, each in one sentence, each attributed.

Resources to keep — Prisoners as Research Subjects

HHS Office for Human Research Protections — hhs.gov/ohrp — the federal office that oversees human-subjects protections, including the Belmont Report and Subpart C guidance.
eCFR — ecfr.gov — the current text of 45 C.F.R. Part 46, free and official.
National Archives — archives.gov — historical records, including Nuremberg trial materials.
988 (call or text) — if anything in this topic has become a personal crisis and you need support now.
Free Pathways Guide — this school's guide to turning free study into real credentials at no cost (in the Topic Library).

What you earned / what's next — Prisoners as Research Subjects

✅ Prisoners as Research Subjects complete (quiz score 80% or higher): You can explain why prisoners were attractive to researchers and why that is the ethical problem, recount the Stateville and Holmesburg histories and their consequences, state Belmont's three principles, list Subpart C's permitted categories and IRB requirements, quote the inducement and parole rules, separate historical inducements from forbidden trades and lawful earned-time credits, and present both sides of today's ethics debate in attributed form.

Your certificate

Minister Destiny Testimony Schools Certificate of Completion — Prisoners as Research Subjects

This certificate is presented by Muslim Ordained Minister Destiny Marie Morgan

Awarded to: ______________________________ (write your name here after you download — your name is never collected or stored by this school)

Date completed: ______________

Congratulations. You asked the hardest question in this library — what a free choice can mean for a person who is not free — and you now hold the history and the exact law that answers it. — Minister Destiny Marie Morgan

This is a certificate of educational completion from Minister Destiny Testimony Schools. It is not a state license, a government certification, or legal training for representing anyone.

What's next: Return to the Topic Library for your next Year 1 Foundations unit.

Sources

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections (hhs.gov/ohrp) — the Belmont Report text, Subpart C guidance, and prisoner-research FAQs — the framework of Parts 3–4.
45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart C (§§ 46.301–46.306) (Code of Federal Regulations) — verified word-for-word against the current eCFR text (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46/subpart-C) on October 21, 2026, including the § 46.305(a)(2) and (a)(6) quotations in Part 4 and the § 46.306(a)(2) categories.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research — The Belmont Report (published in the Federal Register April 18, 1979) — respect for persons, beneficence, justice.
Comfort, Nathaniel — "The Prisoner as Model Organism: Malaria Research at Stateville Penitentiary" (Journal of the History of Biology, via PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2789481/) — the Stateville program, the Nuremberg citation, and Dr. Ivy's role, verified October 21, 2026.
Hornblum, Allen M. — Acres of Skin (1998), and contemporaneous reporting of it (The Chronicle of Higher Education) — the Holmesburg program 1951–1974, its sponsors, payments, and 1974 end.
City of Philadelphia (phila.gov) and University of Pennsylvania — the 2022 formal apologies for the Holmesburg experiments, as reported in the public record October 2022.
ACLU of Tennessee (aclu-tn.org) — "White County Judge Rescinds Order Coercing Sterilization and Birth Control" (July 27, 2017, https://www.aclu-tn.org/press-releases/white-county-judge-rescinds-order-coercing-sterilization-and-birth-control/) — the standing order, the rescission, and the criticism, verified October 21, 2026; and the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct's November 2017 public reprimand, as reported in the public record.
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (U.S. Supreme Court 1942) — compulsory sterilization of "habitual criminals" struck down on equal-protection grounds.
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (U.S. Supreme Court 1927) — compulsory sterilization upheld; never formally overruled; broadly condemned and repudiated in later law and teaching.
Institute of Medicine — Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners (2006) — the access argument and safeguard proposals in Part 6.
OpenStax, Concepts of Biology and Psychology (openstax.org) — university open-textbook framing of research ethics concepts, checked for the university-standard concept set.

Your Progress — On Your Device Only — Prisoners as Research Subjects

Learning outcomes: On completing this unit, the student can:

Explain why confined populations were sought as research subjects and why confinement compromises consent.
Recount the Stateville malaria studies, including their citation at Nuremberg, and the Holmesburg program, including its 2022 apologies.
State the National Research Act's role and the Belmont Report's three principles and applications.
List Subpart C's four permitted research categories and its IRB composition requirements.
Quote and apply § 46.305(a)(2) and § 46.305(a)(6) to a recruitment scenario.
Distinguish historical inducements, trades the current rules forbid, and lawful earned-time education/work credits.
Present the protection argument and the access argument, each attributed, without misrepresenting either.

Study time: Approximately 2.5 hours — an estimate covering reading, activities, and the test. Students move at their own pace.
Assessment: A 10-question test drawn only from this unit's lesson. 80% or higher passes and earns the unit certificate. Answers are not shown; your score is saved only in your own browser on this device, and retakes are allowed.
Level: Topic Library — Year 1 (Foundations) · Adult school · working rank on completion path: Freshman → Sophomore.
Version: Version 1.0 — October 2026.

Minister Destiny Testimony Schools — Adult. Educational information only, not legal advice. Help lines: 911 for emergencies · 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (call/text 988).

Ready to test? This course's test is given at the Testing Center. Answers are never shown; score at least 80% to earn your certificate of completion. You may retake the test as many times as you need — each retake presents the questions in a different order, with the answer choices in a different order too.