Authors
Abstract
In March 1996, the General Accounting Office issued the report Scientific Research: Continued Vigilance Critical to Protecting Human Subjects. It stated that “an inherent conflict of interest exists when physician-researchers include their patients in research protocols. If the physicians do not clearly distinguish between research and treatment in their attempt to inform subjects, the possible benefits of a study can be overemphasized and the risks minimized.” The report also acknowledged that “the line between research and treatment is not always clear to clinicians. Controversy exists regarding whether certain medical procedures should be categorized as research.”This problem currently plagues gene transfer research. A few months prior to the GAO report, an ad hoc committee appointed by National Institutes of Health Director Harold Varmus expressed similar concerns in its assessment of NIH investment in research on gene therapy.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1748-720x.1998.tb01904.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,437
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Experimental Treatment Oxymoron or Aspiration?Nancy M. P. King - 1995 - Hastings Center Report 25 (4):6-15.
Commentary: Examining the Ethics of Human Subjects Research.Paul S. Appelbaum - 1996 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 6 (3):283-287.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Defining and Describing Benefit Appropriately in Clinical Trials.Nancy M. P. King - 2000 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28 (4):332-343.
RAC Oversight of Gene Transfer Research: A Model Worth Extending?Nancy M. P. King - 2002 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (3):381-389.
Genetics and Bioethics: How Our Thinking has Changed Since 1969.LeRoy Walters - 2012 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (1):83-95.
Nanomedicine First-in-Human Research: Challenges for Informed Consent.Nancy M. P. King - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):823-830.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Gene Replacement Therapy in the CNS: A View From the Retina.Gail M. Seigel - 1995 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18 (1):69-69.
The Moral Significance of the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction in Human Genetics.David B. Resnik - 2000 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9 (3):365-377.
Informed Consent: Good Medicine, Dangerous Side Effects.Bruce N. Waller & Robyn A. Repko - 2008 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 17 (1):66-74.
Genetic Disorders and the Ethical Status of Germ-Line Gene Therapy.E. M. Berger & B. M. Gert - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (6):667-683.
How Do We Think About the Ethics of Human Germ-Line Genetic Therapy?Kathleen Nolan - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (6):613-619.
Informed Consent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Research.Anne Gammelgaard - 2004 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (4):417 – 434.
Human Gene Therapy and Slippery Slope Arguments.T. McGleenan - 1995 - Journal of Medical Ethics 21 (6):350-355.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-01-12

Total views
11 ( #803,580 of 2,420,980 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #249,219 of 2,420,980 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes