. "5 Ethical Considerations in the Review of Intentional Human Dosing Studies." Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues
cludes the provision of medical care without cost to participants injured in research). After analyzing how these ethical considerations apply to toxicant studies, the chapter examined the arguments about whether EPA may use data from ethically problematic and unethical studies for regulatory purposes. The committee concludes that, as a general rule, EPA should not use data from unethical studies. However, the committee also recommends standards and procedures for exceptional cases in which information from such studies would support a regulatory standard that provides greater protection for public health.
Beauchamp, T. L., and J. F. Childress. 2001. The Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dickert, N., E. Emanuel, and C. Grady. 2002. Paying research subjects: an analysis of current policies. Annals of Internal Medicine 136(5):368-373.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Comments on the Use of Data from the Testing of Human Subjects: A Report by the Science Advisory Board and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. EPA-SAB-EC-00-017. Washington, D.C.: EPA. Available at www.epa.gov/science1/pdf/ec0017.pdf.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2003. Good Clinical Practices. Available at www.fda.gov/oc/gcp.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2003. Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Joffe, S., E. F. Cook, P. D. Cleary, and J. C. Weeks. 2001. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. The Lancet 358:1772-1776.
Latham and Watkins, LLP. 2003. Re: Protection of Human Participants in Third Party Research STLP-Q-02-02-A. Letter to Anne-Marie Mazza, NAS, on behalf of CropLife America, June 20, 2003.
Miller, C. K., D. C. O’Donnell, H. R. Searight, and R. A. Barbarash. 1996. The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test: an assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacotherapy 16(5):872-878.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). 2001. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants: Vol. 1. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (National Commission). 1979. Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Nuremberg Code. 1949. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2, 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Steinbrook, R. 2002. Improving protection for research subjects. The New England Journal of Medicine 346(18):1425-1430.
World Medical Association (WMA). 2002. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (adopted 18th WMA General Assembly. Helsinki, Finland, June 1964; amended: 29th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975; 35th WMA General Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983; 41st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989; 48th WMA General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996; and 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000. Note of Clarification on Paragraph 29 added by the WMA General Assembly, Washington 2002). Ferney-Voltaire, France: WMA.