<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: human subjects</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'human subjects'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22human+subjects%22&t=%22human+subjects%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 03:31:49 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Understanding Research Methodology 5: Applied and Basic Research</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4820922&amp;cid=t_224878_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2011%2F05%2F12%2Funderstanding-research-methodology-5-applied-and-basic-research%2F</link>
            <description>In conclusion, I will leave you with the words of Keith Stanovich:
[I]t is probably a mistake to view the basic-versus-applied distinction solely in terms of whether a study has practical applications, because this difference often simply boils down to a matter of time.  Applied findings are of use immediately.  However, there is nothing so practical as a general and accurate theory. (2007, p.107)
References
Stanovich, K. (2007).  How to Think Straight About Psychology: 8th Edition.  Boston, MA: Allyn &amp; Bacon.
Photo by Helen Cook, available under a Creative Commons attribution license. (Source: World of Psychology)</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4820922</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 19:55:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4820922</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Medical Ethics: Does Context Matter, Or Is Wrong Always Wrong?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4272286&amp;cid=t_224878_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fmedical-ethics-does-context-matter-or-is-wrong-always-wrong%2F2010.12.20</link>
            <description>I have always felt that issues should be judged by the context of their times. For some issues, however, context provides no justification. Thankfully, the field of medical ethics has evolved into a robust discipline, and there is an enormous need for it. I have read defenses of prior ethical lapses, and even some recent ones, suggesting that context matters.
If a three-month, placebo-controlled study is conducted in the developing world testing a medicine that was highly effective against a serious illness, are the ethical dimensions considered and respected? Were the pharma companies choosing this study locale as a cheap test run for their drug, which will ultimately be marketed in the west? Is it ethically problematic not to provide additional medications to ill subjects after the 3 mon...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4272286</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4272286</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Does Healthcare Reform Involve Research On Human Subjects?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3812975&amp;cid=t_224878_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fdoes-healthcare-reform-involve-research-on-human-subjects%2F2010.08.02</link>
            <description>Every time an experiment on human subjects in proposed in our hospital (or any hospital in the United States for that matter), there is an exquisitely sensitive tuning fork that exists to protect human subjects: the investigational review board or &amp;#8220;IRB.&amp;#8221; Any researcher who has ever brought a research proposal before an IRB knows that any hint of potential harm to a human subject that exists in a research project will kill the proposal faster than you can say &amp;#8220;boo.&amp;#8221;
An IRB submission is required for all research projects using human subjects in accordance with the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Rights 45 CFR 46, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations 21 CFR 50, 56 , and with the Federalwide Assurance granted by the H.H.S. Office of Human Resea...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3812975</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3812975</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>AHLA Teleconference: The Intersection of Social Media and Human Subjects Research</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3395232&amp;cid=t_224878_114_f&amp;fid=34646&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FHealthCareBlogLaw%2F%7E3%2FTaOF1o1pUu8%2Fahla-teleconference-intersection-of.html</link>
            <description>On May 4, 2010, I will be participating in a teleconference on The Intersection of Social Media and Human Subjects Research. The teleconference is co-sponsored by the American Health Lawyers Association Health Information Technology, Life Sciences and Teaching Hospitals and Academic Medical Centers Practice Groups.The moderator for the teleconference will be Karl A. Thallner, Jr., Esquire, Partner, Reed Smith LLP, in Philadelphia, PA. The other panel presenters will be:Naomi Halpern, EsquirePartnerFrommer Lawrence &amp; Haug, Washington, DCLaura Odwazny, EsquireSenior Attorney, Public Health DivisionOffice for Human Research ProtectionsOffice of the General CounselU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MDMore information, including a description of the program and how to ...</description>
            <author>Health Care Law Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3395232</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:29:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3395232</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Lessons Learned from PrEP Trial Cancellations</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2405067&amp;cid=t_224878_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E5%2FNXGhYM4LHOY%2FCameroon.pdf</link>
            <description>Between August 2004 and February 2005, the HIV prevention world was rocked by the suspension and cancellation of two pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) trials in Cambodia and Cameroon. To the considerable surprise of researchers, advocates and donors, these HIV prevention trials became embroiled in escalating controversies and sparked protests by activists speaking on behalf of the communities where trial participants were being recruited. The activists not only raised questions about how the research was being conducted, but also challenged the fundamental ethics and underlying motives of the research.Just this week, my colleagues at the Global Campaign for Microbicides released two in-depth case studies relating the events that led to these trial cancellations and extracting the lessons the...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2405067</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 20:41:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2405067</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Nigerian Families' Claims Against Pfizer Over Drug Tests Reinstated</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2163645&amp;cid=t_224878_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E5%2F532604878%2FClinical_Trial_Report.pdf</link>
            <description>[Courtesy of Alicia Ouellette]

 The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has handed down a case of major importance in research ethics and international law. The case is Rabi Abdullahi v. Pfizer.  The plaintiffs are Nigerian children and their families who were subjected to medical experimentation in Nigeria by drug manufacturer Pfizer. Specifically, the children were among two hundred sick children in Nigeria given the experimental antibiotic Trovan as part of a protocol designed to test the efficacy of Trovan against that of a standard antibiotic treatment. The plaintiffs sought, and won, the right to sue Pfizer in federal court for damages caused by Pfizer's involuntary medical experimentation.

The decision is legally significant for its holding that nonconsensual exp...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2163645</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:37:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2163645</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

