(2002). Avoiding a Jekyll-And-Hyde Approach to the Ethics of Clinical Research and Practice. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 14-17.

Industry control over the production and distribution of pharmaceutical safety and efficacy data has become a serious public health and health care funding concern. Various recent scandals, several involving the use of flawed representations of scientific data in the most influential medical journals, highlight the urgency of enhancing pharmaceutical knowledge governance. This paper analyzes why this is a human rights concern and what difference a human rights analysis can make. The paper first identifies the challenges associated with the current knowledge (...) deficit. It then discusses, based on an analysis of case law, how various human rights associated interests can be invoked to support the claim that states have an obligation to actively contribute to independent knowledge governance, for example through ensuring clinical trials transparency. The paper further discusses a conceptual use of human rights, as a methodology which requires a comprehensive analysis of the different interwoven historical, economic, cultural, and social factors that contribute to the problem. Such an analysis reveals that historically grown drug regulations have, in fact, contributed directly to industry control over pharmaceutical knowledge production. This type of finding should inform needed reforms of drug regulation. The paper ends with a recommendation for a comprehensive global response to the problem of pharmaceutical knowledge governance. (shrink)

A growing number of clinical trials use invasive research procedures to obtain tissue for disease screening and to monitor the effects of drugs. These procedures can be ethically contentious because they often have neither therapeutic nor diagnostic value, and because research participants may not realize this, which could compromise the validity of their consent to the procedure. In the first section of this paper, we describe the burdens, risks, and benefits associated with certain common invasive, nondiagnostic research procedures. We next (...) offer a series of arguments about the general properties of a valid consent for such procedures, and we close by examining what is currently known about consent quality for invasive research procedures when measured against the standards laid out in the second section. We conclude that there is little evidence to either confirm or dispel concerns about participants’ consent quality for protocols involving invasive, nondiagnostic research procedures. (shrink)