- News Home
17 April 2014 12:48 pm ,
Vol. 344 ,
Officials last week revealed that the U.S. contribution to ITER could cost $3.9 billion by 2034—roughly four times the...
An experimental hepatitis B drug that looked safe in animal trials tragically killed five of 15 patients in 1993. Now,...
Using the two high-quality genomes that exist for Neandertals and Denisovans, researchers find clues to gene activity...
A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that humanity has done little to slow...
Astronomers have discovered an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf—a star cooler than the sun—500...
Three years ago, Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University proposed that a warming Arctic was altering the behavior of the...
- 17 April 2014 12:48 pm , Vol. 344 , #6181
- About Us
Ethics Panel Urges Scrutiny of Mental Health Research
17 November 1998 7:00 pm
WASHINGTON, D.C.--Brushing aside research agencies' worries about increasing regulation, a presidential panel today called for tighter control of the way mental patients and other people with impaired judgment are enrolled in drug tests and experiments that don't directly benefit them.
In a final report, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) urged the federal government to create a new standing committee to act as a kind of permanent rulemaker and appeals board in this field. In addition, NBAC proposes that the Institute of Medicine conduct a thorough study of the ethics and science of controversial types of mental health research--including trials in which patients are exposed to "challenges" that exaggerate their symptoms or in which medication is abruptly withdrawn. NBAC seeks to involve guardians and patient advocates more directly in the research approval process.
The National Institutes of Health objected last month that some of these recommendations would impede research (Science, 30 October 1998, p. 857). But NBAC's chair, Princeton University President Harold Shapiro, disagrees. He says he's heard "many assertions" but seen "no convincing evidence" that research would be hurt by such changes. Instead, he says, reform "will encourage greater support for this research in the long term."