MINNEAPOLIS — IF you want to see just how long an academic institution can tolerate a string of slow, festering research scandals, let me invite you to the , where I teach medical ethics.
Over the past 25 years, our department of psychiatry has been party to the following disgraces: a felony conviction and a research disqualification for a psychiatrist guilty of fraud in a drug study; the F.D.A. disqualification of another psychiatrist, for enrolling illiterate refugees in a drug study without their consent; the suspended license of yet another psychiatrist, who was charged with “reckless, if not willful, disregard” for dozens of patients; and, in 2004, the discovery, in a halfway house bathroom, of the near-decapitated corpse of Dan Markingson, a seriously mentally ill young man under an involuntary commitment order who committed suicide after enrolling, over the objections of his mother, in an industry-funded antipsychotic study run by members of the department.
And those, unfortunately, are just the highlights.
The problem extends well beyond the department of psychiatry and into the university administration. Rather than dealing forthrightly with these ethical breaches, university officials have seemed more interested in covering up wrongdoing with a variety of underhanded tactics. Reporting in The Star Tribune discovered, for example, that in the felony case, university officials hid an internal investigation of the fraud from federal investigators for nearly four years.
I hope that the situation at the University of Minnesota is exceptional. But I know that at least one underlying cause of our problems is not limited to us: namely, the antiquated bureaucratic apparatus of institutional review boards, or I.R.B.s, which are supposed to protect subjects of medical experimentation. Indeed, whether other institutions have seen the kinds of abuses that have emerged at the University of Minnesota is difficult to know, precisely because the current research oversight system is inadequate to detect them.
The current I.R.B. system of research protection arose in the 1970s. At the time, many reformers believed the main threat to research subjects came from overambitious government and university researchers who might be tempted to overlook the welfare of research subjects.
As a result, the scheme put in place for protecting subjects was not a formal regulatory system but essentially an honor code. Under the I.R.B. system, medical research studies are evaluated — on paper — by a panel of academic volunteers. I.R.B.s do not usually monitor research as it is taking place. They rarely see a research subject or even a researcher face to face. Instead, they simply trust researchers to tell the truth, report mishaps honestly and conduct their studies in the way that they claim to be conducting them.Continue reading the main story
Ну, если вы имеете в виду и диагностику, то времени уходило. - Насколько. Сьюзан не понимала, к чему клонит Стратмор. - В марте я испробовала алгоритм с сегментированным ключом в миллион бит. Ошибка в функции цикличности, сотовая автоматика и прочее.