Are We Protecting Human Subjects?
Posted by Jillian Theil March 7, 2011
Biopolitical Times
Last week, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues met in Washington, D.C. to discuss ethical issues pertaining to genetics, neuroimaging and human subjects. The first day of the two-day convening covered current developments in genetics and neuroimaging, as well as the ethical and social issues raised by such technologies. A session on the ethics of emerging diagnostic and predictive tools was also featured. The second day focused on the global landscape of medical research and related social and ethical concerns. Blog summaries and video from the meeting may be found on the Commission’s website.
The Commission also announced formation of a panel of international experts, which has been asked to review the adequacy of current human subjects’ protections in clinical trials around the world. The announcement was made in response to a request by President Obama in light of historian Susan Reverby’s shocking discovery that US officials had intentionally infected Guatemalans in the 1940s with syphilis and gonorrhea. Reverby’s diligent research has spawned renewed concern for human subjects’ protection, and the call for reassurance that current rules and norms “protect people from harm or unethical treatment domestically as well as internationally.”
The Commission also announced formation of a panel of international experts, which has been asked to review the adequacy of current human subjects’ protections in clinical trials around the world. The announcement was made in response to a request by President Obama in light of historian Susan Reverby’s shocking discovery that US officials had intentionally infected Guatemalans in the 1940s with syphilis and gonorrhea. Reverby’s diligent research has spawned renewed concern for human subjects’ protection, and the call for reassurance that current rules and norms “protect people from harm or unethical treatment domestically as well as internationally.”