I have to add my .02 here.  I have served on a Human Subjects Review
Committee, the body that most hospitals (and all universities that do
research) are required to have and which MUST pass on all research
conducted by mebmers of the faculty/staff.

I find it extremely hard to believe that a medication study would not
include information about the risks of involvement.  It is a requirement of
all such committees (see name above) and of the US govt if federal funds
are used that both the benefits of participation and the risks (if any)
MUST be shared with all participants.

I have also had to write such consent forms for studies I have conducted
that were, of course, reviewed by said committees.  If one routinely sits
on said committee and has a study being reviewed, one may NOT review one's
own work (for obvious reasons).

It is possible that some hsopitals do not care about this sort of thing and
if they do not accept federal funds would not participate, but even studies
of NON-HUMANS have to first be shown that no harm will come to the animal.
And if the animal must be killed as part of the study, the researchers must
show that this is done humanely.  I am not trying to say that all such
studies are warranted, nor am I taking a side re: animal studies in lieu of
human ones, only sharing what is a requirement.

One must always ask what parents are told, what they signed, and whether
they have a copy of same (Most researchers are REQUIRED to give a copy of
the consent form to the parent/mother/father/participant for them to keep.)

While it is clearly the case that most funding (from private sources) tend
to move the researcher in support of the source of that funding, I have
also seen how it did just the opposite, partiuclarly when the results were
not what the funding source would have preferred.  In addition, I have also
participated in studies where the contract between researcher and funder
specifically FORBADE the funding source from denying publication of the
results at any outlet (journal) of the researchers' choice.  If researchers
accept that the funding source must see the results first, they did not
protect themselves from being "bought" in the most negative sense of that
term.

In no studies where I have received funds was I required to show the
results to the funding source in advance, nor was I not allowed to publish
the findings.

     mailto:[log in to unmask]

"We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly
disguised as impossible situations."
Kathleen G. Auerbach,PhD, IBCLC (Ferndale, WA USA) [log in to unmask]
WEB PAGE: http://www.telcomplus.net/kga/lactation.htm
LACTNET archives http://library.ummed.edu/lsv/archives/lactnet.html