Research is believed to play a fundamental role in ensuring the progress of mankind. It doesn’t only extend the unexplored boundaries of knowledge, but it also enhances the prosperity and security of mankind as well. Successful basic research, of course requires transparency, open exchange of information and the publication of research results. However, there are also risks associated with freely open and transparent research. Such risks include (Appelbaum et al. 2004): indirect danger that results of specific individual research project being misused by third parties for harmful purposes and direct risks associated with negligence or deliberate misconduct by scientists. Therefore, scientists should prevent or minimise both direct and indirect …show more content…
development of new drug and treatment), regulate methods (e.g. certain experiments on humans and clinical tests) or ban the export of knowledge, services and products to certain countries (e.g. legal and policy barriers to sharing data between public health programs).
Leemon McHenry (2008) has described the current situation in medicine as a crisis of credibility. The profit motive of biomedical industry has taken control of the interpretation of clinical results and dissemination of data, such that these companies maintain a stronghold over the content of medical journals. For example, in the case of the medical literature, pharmaceutical companies exert influence over academic medicine in three ways: first, by ghostwriting articles that bias the interpretation of clinical results; second, by the economic power they exert on journals due to the purchase of the ghostwritten articles for marketing and distribution purposes; and third, by imposing threat against those researchers who seek to correct the biased study results of their ineffective or unsafe drugs. Pharmaceutical companies promote their products through
…show more content…
However, it can also lead to ethical and legal challenges in different steps of the clinical trial journey such as research, prevention, diagnosis and treatment. For example, there is considerable debate whether paradigmatic examples of biobanks, genetic tests and gene therapy are achieving meaningful personalised medicine without raising ethical, legal and social challenges to informed consent and to privacy confidentiality. While scientific progress in the area of genetics have offered the promise of revolutionising healthcare system, it also raised challenges to classical paradigms in the biomedical law and ethics fields (Cordeiro, 2014). These issues focus on the challenges to (Solbakk, JH, Holm, S, Hofmann, 2009): first, process of collecting biological materials; second, subjective institutionalisation of research biobanks; third, access and ownership of biological materials and of intellectual property coming from such materials in the bank; and fourth, storage of information collected (e.g. confidentiality, disclosure and data security). Therefore, informed consent in personalised medicine is the cornerstone of biomedical ethics. In most countries, participation in a biobank research is subject to various laws and regulations, which strictly regulate informed consent procedures and
Dr. John Abramson’s book Overdosed America debunks the myths about the excellence of American medicine. Abramson backs up this claim by closely examining research about medicine, closely examining the unpublished details submitted by drug manufacturers to the FDA, and discovering that the unpublished data does not coincide with the claims made about the safety and effectiveness of commonly used medicines. Abramsons purpose is to point out the flaws of the pharmaceutical industry in order to warn the readers about the credibility of the drugs they are buying. Given the critical yet technical language of the book, Abramson is writing to an audience that may include academic physicians as well as those who want to learn about the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry.
In Melody Peterson’s “Our Daily Meds” , the history of marketing and advertising in the pharmaceutical industry is explored. The first chapter of the book, entitled “Creating disease”, focuses on how major pharmaceutical companies successfully create new ailments that members of the public believe exist. According to Peterson, the success that these drug manufacturers have experienced can be attributed to the malleability of disease, the use of influencial people to promote new drugs, the marketing behind pills, and the use of media outlets.
"In the past two decades or so, health care has been commercialized as never before, and professionalism in medicine seems to be giving way to entrepreneurialism," commented Arnold S. Relman, professor of medicine and social medicine at Harvard Medical School (Wekesser 66). This statement may have a great deal of bearing on reality. The tangled knot of insurers, physicians, drug companies, and hospitals that we call our health system are not as unselfish and focused on the patients' needs as people would like to think. Pharmaceutical companies are particularly ruthless, many of them spending millions of dollars per year to convince doctors to prescribe their drugs and to convince consumers that their specific brand of drug is needed in order to cure their ailments. For instance, they may present symptoms that are perfectly harmless, and lead potential citizens to believe that, because of these symptoms, they are "sick" and in need of medication. In some instances, the pharmaceutical industry in the United States misleads both the public and medical professionals by participating in acts of both deceptive marketing practices and bribery, and therefore does not act within the best interests of the consumers.
During the process of research, professionals collect data or identifiable private information through intervention or interaction. While this is a vital part of the scientific and medical fields, every precaution must be taken by researchers to protect the participants' rights. Ethics, outlined by the Belmont report; requirements, described by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); and regulations, laid out by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are verified by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This procedure assures that all human rights are safeguarded during the entire research process.
The more we know about genetics and the building blocks of life the closer we get to being capable of cloning a human. The study of chromosomes and DNA strains has been going on for years. In 1990, the Unites States Government founded the Human Genome Project (HGP). This program was to research and study the estimated 80,000 human genes and determine the sequences of 3 billion DNA molecules. Knowing and being able to examine each sequence could change how humans respond to diseases, viruses, and toxins common to everyday life. With the technology of today the HGP expects to have a blueprint of all human DNA sequences by the spring of 2000. This accomplishment, even though not cloning, presents other new issues for individuals and society. For this reason the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was brought in to identify and address these issues. They operate to secure the individuals rights to those who contribute DNA samples for studies. The ELSI, being the biggest bioethics program, has to decide on important factors when an individual’s personal DNA is calculated. Such factors would include; who would have access to the information, who controls and protects the information and when to use it? Along with these concerns, the ESLI tries to prepare for the estimated impacts that genetic advances could be responsible for in the near future. The availability of such information is becoming to broad and one needs to be concerned where society is going with it.
In Melody Peterson’s “Our Daily Meds” , the history of marketing and advertising in the pharmaceutical industry is explored. The first chapter of the book, entitled “Creating disease”, focuses on how major pharmaceutical companies successfully create new ailments that members of the public believe exist. According to Peterson, the success that these drug manufacturers have experienced can be attributed to the malleability of disease, the use of influencial people to promote new drugs and the efficient usage of media outlets.
In addition to the agreement, the understanding gives two members of Lacks family a seat on the NIH group responsible for reviewing biomedical researchers’ applications for controlled access to HeLa cells.In the Nature Comment, Dr. Collins and NIH Deputy Director for Science, Outreach, and Policy Kathy L. Hudson, Ph.D., describe their collaboration with the family to develop the new policies and also examine some of the larger questions about protection of research participants in the expanding field of genomics research. “Besides their priceless contributions to biomedical research over the past 60 years, Mrs. Lacks and her family are now serving as a catalyst for policies that advance science, build trust, and protect research participants,” said Dr. Hudson. The National Institute of Health announced that they would make good with the Lacks family under a new agreement, which allows the Lacks genome data that will be accessible only to those who apply for and are granted permission. Some of the issues that remain unresolved from this agreement include how tissue research does not legally require informed consent. Storing blood and tissues also is a routine procedure with no legal requirement for consent. The unanswered question is determining the “ownership” of these biological products and cells. The new agreement does not include any financial compensation for the
The genetic technology revolution has proved to be both a blessing and a blight. The Human Genome Project is aimed at mapping and sequencing the entire human genome. DNA chips are loaded with information about human genes. The chip reveals specific information about the individuals’ health and genetic makeup (Richmond & Germov 2009).The technology has been described as a milestone by many in that it facilitates research, screening, and treatment of genetic conditions. However, there have been fears that the technology permits a reduction in privacy when the information is disclosed. Many argue that genetic information can also be used unfairly to discriminate against or stigmatize individuals (Willis 2009).
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be addressed: When should genetic testing be used? And who should have access to the results of genetic tests? As I intend to show, genetic tests should only be used for treatable diseases, and individuals should have the freedom to decide who has access to their test results.
1. Capp, Marshall B. "Ethical and Legal Issues in Research Involving Human Subjects: Do You Want a Piece of Me? -- Kapp 59 (4): 335 -- Journal of Clinical Pathology." BMJ Journals. J Clin Pathol, 18 Jan. 2006. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.
There is very much controversy surrounding the case of the very popular Henrietta Lacks. One of the major implications on the situation that people have a problem with is the lack of consent obtained by Johns Hopkins University and the doctors involved. All though it was not common place as it is in today’s society, many feel that it was not ethical to perform medical procedures without the patient and their family being given all of the knowledge regarding the situation. The tissue sample taken by doctor Howard W. Jones was unbeknown to the family which violates the ethical respect for the person that should be held. A sample of someone’s DNA is not anything that should be taken lightly or regarded as unimportant. It should have been a decision made by Henrietta, and had she of known of the procedure she may have voted against donating to research. This lack of incorporating Henrietta and her family caused there to be a dismal amount of respect for persons shown by the University and all
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost every day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
In dealing with biotechnology cases, human rights theroists stress the importance of the precaution of free and informed consent by relevant rights-holders. In constrast to the former two ethics, the perspective from dignitarians believe that human dignity must not be compromised, whether for the utilitarian benefits or in the conditions of free and informed consent. Therefore, dignitarians condemn any biotechnological practices or products they deem as violations of human dignity.
20 Feb. 2014. Nardo, Don. A. Biomedical Ethics.
However on the other hand, for all advantages; there are disadvantages. In some instances when people utilize and manipulate data, they may knowingly falsify data so that it may adhere to ones beliefs or theories. In addition there are people who may deliberately tamper with information as well. When collecting information, there must be neutrality when assessing and collecting data. In addition, professional competence and integrity must be superior and finally, all research subjects or respondents must be safeguarded from potential harm and sabotage.