Pesticide testing on human subjects: Weighing benefits and risks

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 113, Issue 7, 2005, Pages 813-817

  Resnik, David B ^a   Portier, Christopher ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental protection agency; Ethics; Food quality protection act; Human subjects research; Pesticides testing

Indexed keywords

PESTICIDE;

ARTICLE; ETHICS; EXPOSURE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK REDUCTION; SAFETY; SOCIAL ASPECT; TOXICITY TESTING;

HUMANS; NONTHERAPEUTIC HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; PESTICIDES; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

EID: 22144475440     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.7720     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Angell M. 2004. The Truth about Drug Companies. New York:Random House.
2. Aprea C, Sciarra G, Sartorelli P, Sartorelli E, Strambi F, Farina G, Fattorini A. 1997. Biological monitoring of exposure to chlorpyrifos-methyl by assay of urinary alkylphosphates and 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol. J Toxicol Environ Health 50:581-594.
3. Associated Press. 2004. EPA looking at deciding human testing ethics case by case. Associated Press, 29 November. Available: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-29-epa-humantesting.x.htm [accessed 3 May 2005].
4. AAMC. 2002. Protecting Subjects, Preserving Trust, Promoting Progress II: Principles and Recommendations for Oversight of an Institution's Financial Interests in Human Subjects Research. Washington, DC:Association of American Medical Colleges.
5. Brent R. 2004. Utilization of animal studies to determine the effects and human risks of environmental toxicants (drugs, chemicals, and physical agents). Pediatrics 113(suppl 4):984-995.
6. Children's Environmental Health Network. 1999. Letter to the Honorable Carol M. Browner on pesticide testing on humans, November 18. Washington, DC:Children's Environmental Health Network. Available: http://www.cehn.org/cehn/pesticideletter99.html [accessed 2 May 2005].
7. Cho M, Shohara R, Schissel A, Rennie D. 2000. Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at U.S. universities. JAMA 284:2203-2208.
8. Coronado G, Thompson B, Strong L, Griffith W, Islas I. 2004. Agricultural task and exposure to organophosphate pesticides among farmworkers. Environ Health Perspect 112:142-147.
9. Cranor C. 1997. Eggshell skulls and loss of hair from fright: some moral and legal principles that protect susceptible subpopulations. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 4:239-245.
10. DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services). 2001. Protection of Human Subjects Common Rule. 45 C.F.R. 46.
11. Emanuel E, Wendler D, Grady C. 2000. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 283:2701-2011.
12. EWG. 1998. The English Patients: Human Experiments and Pesticide Policy. Washington, DC:Environmental Working Group. Available: www.ewg.org/reports/english/English.pdf [accessed 2 May 2005].
13. FDA. 1998. Payment to Research Subjects: Guidance for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators. Washington, DC:Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/toc4.html#payment [accessed 10 September 2004].
14. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1999. 21 U.S.C. 342.
15. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. 1964/1999. 7 U.S.C. 136.
16. Food Quality Protection Act. 1996. Public Law 104-170.
17. Gorovitz S, Robertson H. 2000. Pesticide toxicity, human subjects, and the Environmental Protection Agency's dilemma. J Contemp Health L Policy 16:427-458.
18. Halpern S, Karlawish J, Berlin J. 2002. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered studies. JAMA 288:358-362.
19. Kamenetsky H. 2003. Human data debate: US environment agency considers ethics and utility of toxics test on human volunteers. Scientist, 10 January:1.
20. Kato I, Watanabe-Meserve H, Koenig K, Baptiste M, Lillquist P, Frizzera G, Burke et al. 2004. Pesticide product use and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women. Environ Health Perspect 112:1275-1281.
21. Krimsky S. 2003. Science in the Private Interest. Lanham, MD:Rowman & Littlefield.
22. Levine R. 1988. Ethics and the Regulation of Clinical Research. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
23. Lockwood A. 2004. Human testing of pesticides: scientific and ethical considerations. Am J Public Health 94:1908-1916.
24. McDuffie H, Pahwa P, McLaughlin J, Spinelli J, Fincham S, Dosman J, et al. 2001. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and specific pesticide exposures in men: cross-Canada study of pesticides and health. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 10:1155-1163.
25. Miller J. 2005. How a painkiller has brought on the pain. New York Times, 23 January: A1.
26. Morin K, Rakatansky H, Riddick F, Morse L, O'Bannon J, Goldrich M, et al. 2002. Managing conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. JAMA 287:78-84.
27. NIH (National Institutes of Health). 2004. Information on Remuneration of Research Subjects on the Intramural Research Program. Available: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/info/sheet20.html [accessed 8 September 2004].
28. National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
29. Nuremberg Code. 1949. The Nuremberg Code. Available: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/references/nurcode.htm [accessed 2 May 2005].
30. Olesky C, Fleischman A, Goldman L, Hirschhorn K, Landrigan P, Lappé M, et al. 2004. Pesticide testing in humans: ethics and public policy. Environ Health Perspect 112:914-919.
31. Resnik D. 1994. Debunking the slippery slope argument against human germline gene therapy. J Med Phil 19:23-40.
32. Resnik D. 2001. Financial interests and research bias. Perspect Science 8:255-285.
33. Sackett D, Straus S, Richardson W, Rosenberg W, Haynes R. 1997. Evidence-Based Medicine. New York:Churchill Livingstone.
34. Schubert L. 2004. Ethical implications of pharmacogenetics - do slippery slope arguments matter? Bioethics 18:361-378.
35. Shamoo A, Resnik D. 2003. Responsible Conduct of Research. New York:Oxford University Press.
36. Sharav V. 2003. Testimony Given to the Committee on the Use of Third Party Toxicity Research with Human Participants, 8 January 2003. Available: http://www.ahrp.org/testimonypresentations/EPApesticide.php [accessed 2 May 2005].
37. Shogren E. 2001. U.S. will use once-banned human tests. The Los Angeles Times, 27 November:A1.
38. Silbergeld E, Lerman S, Huska L 2004. Human health research ethics. Science 305:949.
39. Swanson K, Mazur M, Vashisht K, Rund L, Beaver J, Counter C, Schook L. 2004. Genomics and clinical medicine: rationale for creating and effectively evaluating animal models. Exp Biol Med 229:866-875.
40. Toxic Substances Control Act. 1999. 15 U.S.C. 2601.
41. U.S. EPA. 2003. Human testing: Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making. Fed Reg 68:24410. Available: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/2003/May/Day-07/g11002.htm [accessed 27 September 2004].
42. U.S. EPA. 2004a. Human Testing: Proposed Plan and Description of Review Process. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available: http://www.peer.org/EPA/EPAhumanstudiesdraft.htm [accessed 27 January 2005].
43. U.S. EPA. 2004b. Pesticide Registration Status. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/oppref/rereg/status.cfm?show=rereg [accessed 5 October 2004].
44. Walton D. 1992. Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford, UK:Clarendon Press.
45. World Medical Association. 2000. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 284:3043-3045.