In the current issue of The Scientist, there’s a pair of interesting pieces about how professional life goes on (or doesn’t) for scientists found guilty of misconduct by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI).
Alison McCook’s article, Life After Fraud, includes interviews with three scientists against whom the ORI has made formal rulings of misconduct. A big concern voiced by each of these scientists is that after the period of their debarment from eligibility to receive federal grants or to serve on a Public Health Service (PHS) committee has expired, the traces of their punishment persist online. McCook writes:
Category Archives: Doing science for the government
Proposed guidelines for embryonic stem cells: applying new ethical rules to old research.
You may have heard that the Obama administration has proposed new rules for federal funding of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. (The proposed rules are available in draft form through the end of the public comment period; the NIH expects to finalize the rules in July).
While researchers are enthusiastic at the prospect under this administration of more funding for ESC research, not everyone is happy about the details of the proposed rules. Indeed, in a recent article in Cell Stem Cell [1], Patrick L. Taylor argues that there is something fundamentally misguided about the way the new rules would be applied to old research:
A warning for the herpeto-unctuous.
It seems that some people respond to public concern about swine flu and its spread by trying to sell you stuff. This stuff is not limited to face masks and duct tape, but includes products advertised to prevent, diagnose, or treat swine flu, but whose claims of safety and efficacy do not have a basis in evidence.
In other words, snake oil.
Flu pandemic ethics: rationing scarce resources.
In an earlier post, I pointed you toward the preliminary report (PDF here) issued by the Minnesota Pandemic Ethics Project this January. This report sets out a plan for the state of Minnesota to ration vital resources in the event of a severe influenza pandemic.
Now, a rationing plan devised by an ethics project is striving for fairness. Rationed resources are those scarce enough that there isn’t enough to go around to everyone who might want or need them. If someone will be left out, what’s a fair way to decide who?
Let’s have a look at the rationing strategies discussed in the draft report:
Ethics in planning for a flu pandemic.
In my last post, I looked at some of the ethical considerations an individual might make during a flu epidemic. My focus was squarely on the individual’s decisions: whether to stay in bed or seek medical care, whether to seek aid from others, etc. This is the kind of everyday ethics that crops up for most of us as we try to get through our days.
If you’re someone who is responsible for keeping health care infrastructure or other state resources in good working order, however, the ethical landscape of a major flu epidemic looks quite different.
Impediments to dialogue about animal research (part 3).
As with yesterday’s dialogue blocker (the question of whether animal research is necessary for scientific and medical advancement), today’s impediment is another substantial disagreement about the facts. A productive dialogue requires some kind of common ground between its participants, including some shared premises about the current state of affairs. One feature of the current state of affairs is the set of laws and regulations that cover animal use — but these laws and regulations are a regular source of disagreement:
Current animal welfare regulations are not restrictive enough/are too restrictive.
Your tax dollars at work: a look at clinical trials supported by NCCAM.
In my last post, I started wading into the question of what kinds of ethical questions arise from clinical trials on “alternative” medical treatments, especially clinical trials supported by the National Center on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). The ethical questions include whether alternative treatments expose human subjects to direct harm, or to indirect harm (by precluding a more effective treatment), not to mention whether the money spent to research alternative modalities would be better spent on other lines of research. I think it’s worthwhile to dip into the NCCAM website to look at some of the clinical trials this federal agency has supported.
From the NCCAM website’s discussion of clinical trials being conducted on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM):
Conventional medicine, ‘alternative’ treatments, and the ethics of research with humans.
A little while ago, PalMD put up a post at Whitecoat Underground about the current state of the National Center on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), especially at a moment in history when the federal government is spending loads of money (and thus maybe should be on the lookout for expenditures that might not be necessary) and when health care reform might actually happen. Pal wrote:
President Obama’s memo on scientific integrity.
The full text of the memorandum is here. Let’s look at some of the details.
Animal research, violent attacks, and the public’s right to know.
An article in the Wall Street Journal notes the collision between researchers’ interests in personal safety and the public’s right to know how its money is being spent — specifically, when that money funds research that involves animals: