4 ms·

I am terrified of the idea that you're trying to encourage governments to compel scientists to do anything against their will. Washington doesn't have this righ

I am terrified of the idea that you're trying to encourage governments to compel scientists to do anything against their will. Washington doesn't have this right any more than they have a right to read your encrypted email.

carbocation 14y ago
At the very least, there should be no issue with requiring this of any trials that use government funds, no?
- anExcitedBeast 14y ago
  That I will gladly concede, so long as that expectation is communicated as a condition of the funding.
notahacker 14y ago
I think scientists generally are in favour of having the results of their trials published. It's their employers that generally aren't when it's not in their commercial interests to do so. I'm not sure drug tests fall under the "right to privacy" in the same way as private communications either. I'd expect at the very least governments ought to compel the release of results from any trials [part]funded by public bodies
MaysonL 14y ago
The results of any clinical trial of anything medical seeking government approval should be public.
parfe 14y ago
If scientists want to experiment on citizens then they should publish whatever results they find. If Wonder Drug X is found to have no positive effect, or worse, cause Exploding Heart Syndrome then that needs to be publicly released. Even if it conflicts with the profit motives of the corporation. That should be the standard trade-off for the ability to treat humans as rats.
olefoo 14y ago
By definition clinical trials do not happen in a void, there is already a system of Institutional Review Boards and controls to prevent abuse of patients and to prevent experimentation without informed consent. This would be an extension of that. And more generally, if you are running experiments with human beings; society has a material interest in both the process and the results.
justsee 14y ago
It's actually the other way around! Imagine we currently had a well-designed, scientific regulatory system. All clinical trial activity was transparent so that regulatory bodies and the public had the complete picture of the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical products. Now imagine pharmaceutical companies were lobbying government to allow them to instead filter their clinical trial data, suppressing scientists from publishing negative data, and only publishing positive data to support their products. They launched a site called http://www.sometrials.com http://www.sometrials.com, arguing that only publishing some trials reduced regulatory cost and burden, ensuring cheaper drugs for more people. Wink wink. Then a modified version of your statement would make a lot of sense, imho: I am terrified of the idea that pharmaceutical companies are trying to compel scientists to do anything against their will. Private corporations don't have this right any more than they have the right to read your encrypted email.

carbocation 14y ago

At the very least, there should be no issue with requiring this of any trials that use government funds, no?

anExcitedBeast 14y ago
That I will gladly concede, so long as that expectation is communicated as a condition of the funding.

notahacker 14y ago

I think scientists generally are in favour of having the results of their trials published. It's their employers that generally aren't when it's not in their commercial interests to do so. I'm not sure drug tests fall under the "right to privacy" in the same way as private communications either. I'd expect at the very least governments ought to compel the release of results from any trials [part]funded by public bodies

MaysonL 14y ago

The results of any clinical trial of anything medical seeking government approval should be public.

parfe 14y ago

If scientists want to experiment on citizens then they should publish whatever results they find. If Wonder Drug X is found to have no positive effect, or worse, cause Exploding Heart Syndrome then that needs to be publicly released. Even if it conflicts with the profit motives of the corporation. That should be the standard trade-off for the ability to treat humans as rats.

olefoo 14y ago

By definition clinical trials do not happen in a void, there is already a system of Institutional Review Boards and controls to prevent abuse of patients and to prevent experimentation without informed consent. This would be an extension of that. And more generally, if you are running experiments with human beings; society has a material interest in both the process and the results.

justsee 14y ago

It's actually the other way around! Imagine we currently had a well-designed, scientific regulatory system. All clinical trial activity was transparent so that regulatory bodies and the public had the complete picture of the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical products. Now imagine pharmaceutical companies were lobbying government to allow them to instead filter their clinical trial data, suppressing scientists from publishing negative data, and only publishing positive data to support their products. They launched a site called http://www.sometrials.com http://www.sometrials.com, arguing that only publishing some trials reduced regulatory cost and burden, ensuring cheaper drugs for more people. Wink wink. Then a modified version of your statement would make a lot of sense, imho: I am terrified of the idea that pharmaceutical companies are trying to compel scientists to do anything against their will. Private corporations don't have this right any more than they have the right to read your encrypted email.