Aggregated News
Last week, Kirstin Borgerson, a philosopher at Dalhousie University, published a thoughtful commentary on my colleague Carl Elliott’s persistent call for an investigation of Dan Markingson’s death and psychiatric research misconduct at the University of Minnesota. Dan Markingson was a young man from St. Paul who committed suicide by nearly decapitating himself while enrolled in a psychiatric drug study at the University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview.
In analyzing the audience’s response to Carl’s public lecture, alongside the typical response of her undergraduate students, Borgerson notes that there was no animated discussion of ethical issues in the Markingson case because “very simply, there is nothing to debate.” Borgerson adds,
Among serious scholars, there is no defense of the practice of: radically violating informed consent …; enrolling suicidal patients in the sort of risky trial that Markingson was enrolled in; having researchers disrespect and disregard concerns raised by family members about the well-being of research subjects during a trial; or creating conditions under which researchers are motivated to enroll subjects so as not to lose out on tens of thousands of...
In analyzing the audience’s response to Carl’s public lecture, alongside the typical response of her undergraduate students, Borgerson notes that there was no animated discussion of ethical issues in the Markingson case because “very simply, there is nothing to debate.” Borgerson adds,
Among serious scholars, there is no defense of the practice of: radically violating informed consent …; enrolling suicidal patients in the sort of risky trial that Markingson was enrolled in; having researchers disrespect and disregard concerns raised by family members about the well-being of research subjects during a trial; or creating conditions under which researchers are motivated to enroll subjects so as not to lose out on tens of thousands of...