As usual, the academic sociopoliticals don't want to delve into issues of wealth and poverty. Notably this has been a real issue in pharmaceutical drug safety

As usual, the academic sociopoliticals don't want to delve into issues of wealth and poverty. Notably this has been a real issue in pharmaceutical drug safety trials, which have tended to exploit poor populations in industrialized countries as well as, more recently, the impoverished populations in developing nations. There's no mention of this whatsoever, instead it's about this: "We also developed two specific sections — on race, ethnicity and racism; and on sex, gender identity/presentation and orientation — that clarify issues with these constructs and explain that racism and discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation should have no place in science." The trend towards moving clinical trials to developing nations was first commented on over a decade ago and is in full swing today, but it doesn't even get a mention. For example: "Ethical and Scientific Implications of the Globalization of Clinical Research", Glickman et al. (2009)" http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/schering-plough-workshop/files/2009-Glickman-EthicalAndScientficImplications.pdf http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/schering-plough-workshop/file... > "This phenomenon raises important questions about the economics and ethics of clinical research and the translation of trial results to clinical practice: Who benefits from the globalization of clinical trials? What is the potential for exploitation of research subjects?" That's an explicit fundamentally important ethical issue, but raising it might imperil academic funding from pharmaceutical corporations, so they stick to their safe topics. It's really kind of pathetic.