excerpts from the NY Times "Research Rule Changes Proposed for Research on Humans"
By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: July 24, 2011 :
"One change would expand the rules’ coverage to all studies conducted at institutions that receive money from any of the 15 federal agencies that have adopted the Common Rule. For example, if a university gets financing from the National Institutes of Health, then even a study at that university paid for by a drug company would be covered by the rules.
While that would encompass more medical research, it was not clear whether trials financed by drug companies and conducted at individual physicians’ offices would be covered.
By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: July 24, 2011 :
"One change would expand the rules’ coverage to all studies conducted at institutions that receive money from any of the 15 federal agencies that have adopted the Common Rule. For example, if a university gets financing from the National Institutes of Health, then even a study at that university paid for by a drug company would be covered by the rules.
While that would encompass more medical research, it was not clear whether trials financed by drug companies and conducted at individual physicians’ offices would be covered.
Another proposed change would allow a single institutional review board to oversee studies that take place at multiple sites." read the rest
The above excerpts are common sense; which is NOT that common. Sound ideas, urgently needed with the rampant Conflicts of Interest, the unethically conducted and biased reporting of scientific research; both in professional journals, and in the media. As with all proposed changes in rules, there is also the need for a sound plan to achieve compliance---Research professionals are people too---with the same human failings and character flaws as the general public. Having a degree (or several does) not make people less human or more ethical---
The fact that the Common Rule has not been Federal policy for all federal grant recipients is, in my opinion, an egregiousness Ethical oversight. Why would we NOT not expect a researcher to conform to Ethical Standards in all of the research he/she does? I can not help but be suspicious that this was no "oversight." I just do not believe it was overlooked by accident...Why would a researcher not be expected to conform to an the same Ethical Standards in all of the research they conduct? Are people not aware that scientific standards and professional ethics are not intended to be transient or "optional"? These standards exist to protect the integrity of the scientific data base; and in the case of research done on, or affecting humans; to protect us.
This is not a matter of the "too much government" or bureaucratic control. It is a matter of getting what WE the people pay for--an honest job done with integrity by people who are hired by WE the American people. Our very lives may depend upon the integrity of the people we hire; it isn't rocket science...
No comments:
Post a Comment