Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 3 Feb 2006 07:32:07 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dear all:
There are many fine researchers that contributing to Lacnet. In my former life when I had time to
do research, I followed the protocols I learned while at Cornell. We actually did have to take an
ethics class - one of the very few required classes - because of the graduate student who had
painted black spots on rats and fabricated his research. Even without the course this was infused
into every step of our progress towards our doctorate. We routinely discussed ethics when we
reviewed papers.
We just had an example of how corporate funding and the lack of an open review system can
pervert research in a way that has dire consequences for infants. I have quoted Chandra's
research believing that it had undergone proper human subject review and peer review by an
unbiased independent body. I did not look closely enough at who funded the research and make
the leap that the research was fabricated.
I do not see Chandra himself on Lactnet participating in our discussions and defending whatever
motivations he had to fabricate his research and then try to sue the university so that those with
legitimate questions would stop asking those questions.
One of the most important issues that the Chandra debacle brings up is that it is absolutely
necessary to have an open and conflict of interest free process for conducting research so that
appropriate checks and balances are in place. Those who are in the position of conducting the
human ethics review should be free of conflicts of interest. Even with not for profit research this
can be tricky, but when it is for profit research it is essential.
Moreover, there are clearly defined protocols for the recruitment of human subjects for research.
This does not necessarily mean that the subjects are directly receiving an intervention. I had to
undergo human subject review to analyze data that had been collected 20 years before in
Guatemala to ensure that my research protocol was ethical. How subjects are RECRUITED must
undergo human ethics review, especially any incentives that are used to recruit subjects.
I have never once seen one of those not for profit researchers that contribute ocaissionally to
Lactnet recruit subjects on Lactnet or defend how they are recruiting subjects on Lactnet. They go
through a human subjects review board. Recruiting subjects for human research in a for profit
setting is essentially asking for a donation to conduct their research even if the donated substance
is funneled through a not for profit institution - it ultimately goes to the for profit institution. It
seems to me that the dicussion of whether or not this is ethical should take place in a setting that
is free from conflicts of interest and pressure from those parties that have a stake in the outcome.
It is in that regard that I consider it to be advertising when those with a vested interest in a
research process that may result in a human milk substitute (albeit modified from that human
milk) being developed and sold. Make no mistake, if hospitals are paying for a product, the
consumer pays even if it is in such an indirect way that they are not aware of how they are paying
for it.
Susan Burger
***********************************************
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|