Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.

Science 14 April 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5771, p. 175
DOI: 10.1126/science.312.5771.175b
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

ScienceScope

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can use nine studies in which humans were intentionally dosed with pesticides in its decisions this year about reregulating the chemicals, a new advisory board has concluded. Activists have complained for years about the ethics of intentional-dosing studies (Science, 1 January 1999, p. 18), and in 2004, a report by a National Academies' National Research Council panel called for the review board.

Meeting last week for the first time, EPA's Human Studies Review Board was charged by the agency with examining 11 studies for scientific merit and whether there was "clear and convincing evidence that the research was intended to seriously harm participants or [purposely] failed to obtain informed consent." The 16-member group found no such flaws but rejected two studies as scientifically inadequate; it will meet again in May and June to review more studies.

Jennifer Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C., says all 11 studies have some ethical flaws, such as possibly harming subjects, and shouldn't be used by the agency. But she's pleased that the board will use a higher standard when it vets protocols for proposed research.




To Advertise     Find Products

Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)