Faulty premise, premature conclusion: That money was extraneous to the research ethics of the TGN1412 study

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 93-94

  Spielman, Bethany ^a,b  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY TGN1412; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ECONOMICS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; RESEARCH ETHICS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARD;

ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 33847664171     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265160601112253     Document Type: Note

References (6)

1. Emanuel, E. J., D. Wendler, and C. Grady. 2000. What makes clinical research ethical? Journal of the American Medical Association 283(20): 2701-2711.
2. Emanuel, E. J., and F. G. Miller. 2007. Money and distorted ethical judgments about research: Ethical assessment of the TeGenero TGN1412 Trial. American Journal of Bioethics 7(2): 76-81.
3. Institute of Medicine. 2002. Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine.
4. Kenter, M. J. H., and F. Cohen. 2006. Establishing risk of human experimentation with drugs: Lessons from TGN1412. Lancet 368: 1387-1391.
5. Miller, F. H. 2001. Trusting doctors: Tricky business when it comes to clinical research. Boston University Law Review 283: 2701-2711.
6. Spielman, B. 2005. Professional independence and corporate employment in bioethics. Hospital Ethics Committee Forum 17(2): 146-156.