In clinical trials, for-profit review boards are taking over for hospitals. Should they?
By Sheila Kaplan,
STAT
| 07. 06. 2016
For years, ethicist Arthur Caplan warned medical researchers that paying businesses to evaluate their clinical trials was a bad idea.
He condemned trials that didn’t rely on hospital or academic review boards — long the gold standard in science — and argued that for-profit review boards were out to make a buck, not protect patients.
Today, Caplan sits on the advisory board of WIRB-Copernicus Group, the largest commercial institutional review board, or IRB, in the country.
He says he had no choice.
Continue reading on STAT
Image via Flickr/AJC
Related Articles
By Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 06.04.2026
Scientists at Columbia University have edited the DNA of early human embryos with unprecedented accuracy, an achievement that could open the way to babies engineered with particular characteristics.
The prospect has fueled controversy for years. On the one hand, the...
By Alexandre Piquard, Le Monde [cites CGS' Katie Hasson] | 05.22.2026
"If proven to be safe, we believe preventive gene editing could be one of the most important health technologies of the century." This is how Lucas Harrington explained the goal of his company Preventive: to create genetically modified babies. Trying...
By Daniel Shanahan, Los Angeles Review of Books | 05.31.2026
This is the 15th installment in the Legacies of Eugenics series, which features essays by leading thinkers devoted to exploring the history of eugenics and the ways it shapes our present. You can read the first part here. The series...
By Sofia Resnick, Stateline | 05.20.2026
An anti-abortion group last month sued seven Utah fertility clinics, claiming their disposal of embryos as part of the in vitro fertilization process violates the state’s wrongful death law.
The ministry Voice for the Voiceless believes it has a strong...
