© 2009 American Public Health Association DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.152389
At the time of writing, Barry Bozeman was with the Department of Public Administration and Policy at the University of Georgia, Athens. Catherine P. Slade was with the Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, Tempe. Paul Hirsch was with the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. Correspondence: Correspondence should be sent to Catherine P. Slade, Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, PO Box 875603, Tempe, AZ 85287-5603 (e-mail: slade3534{at}comcast.net). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the "Reprints/Eprints" link.
Research involving human participants continues to grow dramatically, fueled by advances in medical technology, globalization of research, and financial and professional incentives. This creates increasing opportunities for ethical errors with devastating effects. The typical professional and policy response to calamities involving human participants in research is to layer on more ethical guidelines or strictures. We used a recent case—the Johns Hopkins University/Kennedy Kreiger Institute Lead Paint Study—to examine lessons learned since the Tuskegee Syphilis Study about the role of institutionalized science ethics in the protection of human participants in research. We address the role of the institutional review board as the focal point for policy attention.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||