On the popular Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu, also known as RedNote, an account called “Georgia Notes” (@格鲁吉亚小纸条) offers tips and advice to Chinese nationals planning a trip to the Republic of Georgia. In one post...
Research Ethics at Minnesota
Posted by Osagie Obasogie August 31, 2010
Biopolitical Times
In “Making a Killing” (Mother Jones, Sept./Oct. 2010), University of Minnesota bioethicist Carl Elliott provides a chilling account of what can happen when human research protections are compromised by market forces. The article details the circumstances surrounding Dan Markingson’s death – a young man who committed suicide while enrolled in a clinical trial funded and designed by AstraZeneca in coordination with researchers at the University of Minnesota. Elliott argues that this clinical trial death is striking since the research was not designed to produce objective scientific data, but rather to show that AstraZeneca’s antipsychotic drug worked better than its competitors.
Which raises a profound question regarding research subject protections: when is it ethical to enroll human subjects in what are essentially marketing campaigns? Or, as Elliott asks, “How much of a risk to human subjects is justified in a study whose aim is to ‘generate commercially attractive messages?’”
But research ethics at the University of Minnesota are also in the spotlight for other reasons. CGS’ Doug Pet raised an important issue about another project linked to the University named the Gopher Kids study, which is designed to understand the genetic underpinning of normal and healthy children by collecting hundreds of samples from kids and their parents. The kicker? Research participants are being recruited at the state fair. As Pet pointed out:
Which raises a profound question regarding research subject protections: when is it ethical to enroll human subjects in what are essentially marketing campaigns? Or, as Elliott asks, “How much of a risk to human subjects is justified in a study whose aim is to ‘generate commercially attractive messages?’”
But research ethics at the University of Minnesota are also in the spotlight for other reasons. CGS’ Doug Pet raised an important issue about another project linked to the University named the Gopher Kids study, which is designed to understand the genetic underpinning of normal and healthy children by collecting hundreds of samples from kids and their parents. The kicker? Research participants are being recruited at the state fair. As Pet pointed out:
The chaotic and otherwise jovial atmosphere of a state fair could not be further opposed from a clinic, lab, or other appropriately focused setting for gaining fully informed consent.
Jeremy Olson at the Star-Tribune recently published an interesting look into the first set of recruits for the Gopher Kids study. Olson’s interviews with research participants at least partially bear out Pet’s concern:
Consenting to the U's "Gopher Kids'' study wasn't part of the Poikonens' fair plan, but a recruiter quickly convinced the Mound, Minn., family to take part. "My son just wanted a sweatshirt," said Darren Poikonen, who watched as volunteers took his kids' blood pressure. "We didn't know about this until we were in here."