Interactive Case for February-March 2004
You are the head of the human subject research review board (IRB) at
your medical center. Before physicians and scientists can carry out research
on human subjects, they need approval from the IRB. The IRB determines if the
proposed research is important and if it has a high likelihood of advancing
our knowledge. The IRB also judges whether the risks to the human subjects are
justified by the potential benefits of the proposed work either to the subjects
themselves or to future patients. In addition, the IRB tries to insure that
the humans who agree to be experimental subjects understand the risks of participating
in the research compared to the benefits that they might receive.
One of the scientists at your medical center has proposed to carry out research
on a new type of artificial blood that might save many lives. Preliminary
investigation with animals has shown that the artificial blood should be safe
for humans. The scientist who proposes the research with human subjects also
owns the company that makes the artificial blood product. If she discovers the
product works for humans, then her company will make a lot of money. If she
discovers that the product does not work in humans, then her company will lose
a lot of money. Some of your IRB board members have argued that because of her
financial involvement, she will be unable to carry out the research completely
honestly, even if she tries to do so. Other board members have argued that she
is the best qualified person to carry out the research because she understands
the artificial blood product better than anyone else. As head of the IRB, would
you allow her to carry out this research? If so, would you establish any special
conditions under which the research must be done? If not, would you propose
any alternatives?
Dear Students,
Thank your for your thoughtful and interesting responses. We received comments
from 177 individuals representing 21 schools. Your ideas were excellent. You
emphasized that the human subjects involved should fully understand the research.
A majority of you felt that the researcher could do the work despite her financial
interests if the research was monitored in an appropriate fashion.
A major goal of health research is to increase the availability of safe, lifesaving
treatments. It concerns us, however, when the outcome of research to evaluate
these treatments might be influenced by financial interests. Such is the conflict
in our dilemma where the person who wants to do the research also is the person
most closely linked to the financial interests.
We call this situation a “conflict of interest.” Ideally, a researcher
working with human subjects should be interested in helping patients directly
or in generating scientific findings to help future patients. In our dilemma,
however, besides helping patients, the researcher stands to gain or lose financially
depending on the results of the experiments.
Researchers need to be intellectually honest and neutral about the results
of their findings. Many people are concerned that financial interests can influence
a researcher’s judgment, not only causing bias in study design and data
analysis, but also in the selection or use of patients as human subjects. Consequently,
organizations such as the American Association of Medical Colleges recommend
that except under special circumstances researchers should not participate in
human research if they have a significant financial interest in the outcome.
In our dilemma, there are such special circumstances since the person who has
a conflict of interest also is the person best qualified to carry out the research.
Several different mechanisms help protect the integrity of the research even
when a conflict of interest is present. First, testing the usefulness of new
treatments usually depends on the results of multiple studies at multiple locations.
Therefore, a single person can have only limited impact on the final outcome
of the evaluation. Second, the design of the research will have to be approved
in advance not only by the medical center’s institutional review board,
but also eventually by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA approval
is required before a new drug can become available for regular use. Once the
research design has been established, the investigators cannot make any changes
without FDA approval. Third, the research can include participation of a data
research and monitoring board to oversee every aspect of the studies from selection
of patients to analysis of the data. With these safeguards in place, the IRB
would likely approve the research described in our ethics dilemma.
Student Responses
6/24/04
Yes, I would let the scientist carry out her research. Preliminary investigation
shows this blood should be safe for humans, so it definitely warrants further
experimentation. As the owner of the company who makes this artificial blood,
she does have a lot to gain. On the other hand, she could also lose a lot of money
if the product does not work on humans. Some of the IRB board members' concerns
are understandable, but if the board is carried out like it should be, her company
and work ethics should be under review throughout the whole research process.
This sounds like a risk worthy of participation. After all, the potential of many
lives saved is a benefit to society at large. She is the best qualified person
and understands the product better than anyone else. If she is working on something
of this magnitude for the human race, she obviously cares and is not in it for
just the monetary gain. She is well aware of the IRB's influence and the need
for their approval and scrutiny of the project. Because of this, I believe
she is working in the best interest of humanity, while at the same time striving
to better her company and self.
rh
DBU
6/24/04
Definitely a scenario that could produce 2 reasonably correct answers. I believe
that the lady should be allowed to perform her research and long as it is understood
that all results would be scrutinized by a board who has been hand picked by the
research staff to do an analysis of the development and also to verify the testing
procedures. What if she also had a position where she would just head-up the development
team and not actually do any hands on work. If she is not allowed to participate
would it be possible that the development of this drug could be delayed for months
or even years, and the chance to save hundreds of lives would be lost. I say we
let her do her research with the aid of a team.
B.E.H.
Dallas Baptist University
4/4/04
Personally, I would allow the scientist to carry out the research on humans because
there is a real blood shortage right now. If the research was to be done, I would
only allow it every 1 out of 4 patients that need a blood transfision.
J.A.M.
Socorro High School
3/31/04
As head of IRB, I would allow her to carry out her research because if she is
successful then many lives could be saved. Blood transfusions may take a
while because of the person's blood type but this way that person can get the
blood transfusion right away. As long as she knows what she is doing and the possible
risks then let her do her research. I believe she should be under supervision
of another scientist that has no beneficial outcome of this research who understands
what she is doing. Yeah she may become rich but at the same time they have to
look at the outcome of her research and the benefits.
E.P.H.
Socorro High School
3/30/04
I belive the most qualified people should be able to do what they are good at;
in this case the scientist is considered the best
in her feild for this type of research. However, because she would benifit finacialy
from a positive reslut in the experiment, I
belive it might sway her judgement, as with any other person. To prevent this,
she should be overseen by someone or a group
of people who wouldn't benift finacially from this experiment. This would allow
her to do her job, possibly gain some
money, amd everyone involved would be assured that the results are true.
S.K.
Arbor Creek Middle School
3/30/04
I believe that the scientist should be able to perform the experimentation herself.
However, an outside, neutral party that will not benefit from the experiments
financially should work closely with her and be allowed all of the same privileges
when it comes to monitoring the experiments as she is. That way, a close objective
eye can be on all of the information all of the time, and hopefully, this will
prevent any doctoring of the data.
VLA
Socorro High School
3/29/04
I believe that people are making this a bigger deal than it is. A woman is trying
to help the world, and they are arguing over if
it is wrong or right. She is using her own money for this project, so they should
be completely up for it. By her doing that it
shows that she has almost full confidence in herlself. Which is more than alot
of other people would be willing to risk. i think
that it is horrible that money is the issue here. Are these people saying that
money is more important that saving lives and
helping the world? By them arguing about this they are just killing more and more
people. It's going to take time so they need
to start right away. I would just say forget the money and go for it!
E.C.
Fossil Ridge High School
3/29/04
I would of course allow her to carry out the research, especially if she understands
the artificial blood more than anyone else. I would, however, suggest that another
scientist who is also a leading authority on artificial blood who has no financial
involvement in the reserach assist in the research so that they can give an objective
opinion on whether or not the artificial blood works and is safe.
JRC
Socorro High School
3/27/04
I think the fact that she owns the company sponsoring the research should not
matter. The fact that she is gambling her
own money should be proof enough that all of her effort will be put into the project.
If her company's' past research shows no
sign of personal involvement interfering with their research, then I feel she
should be allowed to carry out the assignment.
N.S.
Arbor Creek
3/27/04
I believe that the scientist should be allowed to test the new artificial blood
because she understands it better than anyone else. I think that there should
be no special conditions under which the research should be done. i think that
it is a bonus that she has something to gain form the product's success because
she will be more motivated to make the tests a success.
T.M.
Arbor Creek
3/26/04
As the head of the IRB, I feel it is important that a level of trust is maintained
between scientists, however, this is a matter of special attention. Yes, I would
allow this scientist to perform her research under the conditions that any other
experiment would be performed, and her findings would be reviewed and analyzed
normally. But, a duplicate experiment would be carried out by an independant scientist,
and those results would be reviewed and analyzed. If, however, an anomaly was
discovered between the data from the two experiments, then the proposal would
be placed under investigation, and, if needed, rejection. The cost of conducting
a repeat experiment would be well worth the lives and careers at risk.
M.C.
Fossil Ridge High School
3/25/04
The only issue here worth debating is the idea that the scientist has a conflict
of interest in the eyes of some members of the IRB. For those that feel that she
will be unable to carry out the research honestly, review the previous record
of this scientist and ask these questions: Has she been known to maintain ethical
practices in previous experiments? Or is she known to be irresponsible with her
specimens? And most importantly, how much risk is involved with this experiment?
According to the information provided in the case, the artificial blood "should"
be safe for humans. Using the word "should" casts doubt into my mind
on the legitimacy of her product and I believe that whenever you test humans you
should be almost "certain" that the product will not harm the human.
After all, this is a life or death situation because we all know that you cannot
survive without blood. So examine the scientist's record, it could help determine
the answer to this question.
Z.H.
Frisco High School
3/25/04
I believe that being the most qualified person, the scientist should be allowed
to carry out her expirmentation with the artificial blood but should have limitions
that are to be placed by the IRB. The limitations will involve which type of animals,
including humans, she can perform her tests on. Also, There should be a couple
of highly qualified scientists appointed from outside her facility supervising
and possibly assisting in her studies. This will allow for a honest outcome of
the results without tainting or possibly halting the breakthrough of artificial
blood.
C.G.
Frisco High School
3/25/04
As head of the IRB review board, I would allow the scientist to conduct the artificial
blood expirements, but also carefully observe the project to ensure honesty is
kept & that no lives are in danger.
EG
Harwood Junior High school
3/25/04
As head of the IRB, I would allow the woman to proceed with the research only
if she agreed to provide clear documentation and proper support of her findings.
I would be more comfortable with the situation if she continued to test the artificial
blood on animals with circulatory systems similar to those of humans. Ideally,
humans would be eased into the process with only small amounts of the artificial
blood being introduced into their systems; nothing drastic like a transfusion.
I believe that with such strict accountability to the IRB, her financial zeal
may be subdued. Also, since the IRB and ultimately the government authorities
would be skeptical of her objectivity, she would be forced to show accuracy.
TK
Frisco High School
3/25/04
If this person is the most qualified to carry out the experiment, then I think
she should be allowed to do so. Another person that is equally knowledgable about
the experiment should also go along with her so if she does have motive to be
dishonest about the product then there will be someone to catch her before it
is released on humans other than the research subjects. If there is some dishonestly
when a faulty product is released and she does so for her personal gain, then
she, in turn, will also be getting sued for unhappy patients. I do believe that
if this experiment will be beneficial in saving thousands of lives then it is
worth the risk and the time of this scientist.
Katie McGhee
Frisco High School
3/25/04
Well I think that she should not do the research because if she is not sure that
the blood well save peoples lives then they will
lose alot of money. But my opinion would be different if she did know what was
going on and if she knew if it really worked
A.G.
Arlington high school
3/25/04
I think that since this woman is a professional in the field, I would allow her
to continue the research.I would personally set certain guidelines to which the
woman would have to follow ,and keep evaluating her performance.Since she is involved
in this matter financially,she will succeed if she helps the community and because
she is putting her money in it too , she would loose it if it failed.
KR
Arlington High School
3/25/04
I agree that she should carry out the experiment, because she is most qualified.
But she is also financially involved so i would want someone to supervise her
in continuing the experiment out.
AR
Arlignton High
3/25/04
I agree that she is the most qualifed to perfor the experiments, but she is also
financially involved, so I would allow her to carry out her experiments but I
would send someone to supervise. Someone who is not involved emotionally or financially
and have them just make sure that everything was fair and honest.
RB
Arlington High School
3/25/04
Well, I think it is a good idea so that way people dont have to wait to much for
get blood.
V.A.
Arlington High School
3/25/04
I would diffinately allow the scientist at the center to go through with the artificial
blood transfer. Since she had been working with the blood for so long she probably
inunderstands it better than any other person there. The researcher is risking
a lot of money and i think she would not risk the chance if she wasn't sincere.
The researcher is willing to do this so most likely she really wants to help people.
If the blood does work she will gain a lot of money but the results will be even
better.
A.W.
Arlington high school
3/25/04
I think this is a very important discovery for the medical field. Since
that sexual diseases can transfer through the Blood Transfusion, I think we should
be more concern abuot this problem. If this woman can really provide this
artifical blood product, the doctors need to try to do a experience on it,
to be able to see if it really works, or if it will do anything harmful to humans.
YC
Arlington High School
3/25/04
Being the head of IRB I would allow the business woman to continue her research,
yet under the close watch of another trusted, mutual board member. In addition,if
this businesswoman was not allowed to research in the field she knows best this
would be a crime to the medical field.
S.H.
Arlington High
3/25/04
I would let her proceed with the experiment. Even though she does not have any
money, she is the best qualified. I believe that she will get the job done and
earn herself a lot of money. I would set up special conditions for her to
do the research. THe special conditions would be away from the public and somewhere
top secret. If she is a faliure i dont want other people to know about it. it
would ruin everything of her. i strongly belive that she will be able to pull
through. who knows, maybe the money reward will be a good boost to get the job
done. if she is the best one for this job, she will get it done. i have faith
in her. as the head of the irb, i will let her proceed with this research.
3/25/04
If i was the head of the research department i wouldnt want that done. I mean
i know we could learn alot from it but theres human lifes at stake. People say
ya ok ill b ur testing human but no one really knows whats gonna happen and people
dont always know whats best, what if something were to go wrong and the human
subjects were to die or have horrible problems? Artificial blood is not made for
the human body thats why we have real blood and have blood drives cuz thats how
we were made and theres no reason to try to change it.
CN
Arlington High School
3/25/04
I believe that she should be able to carry out the procedure; she is a proffessional
and would not subject human lives just for the fact that it would make her company
a lot of money. Money is important but being proffessional she would care more
about the lives and safety of human beings. Just in case, she could also have
other meidcally smart people working with her that aren't from her company to
make sure it does what she says it does. It could possibly save many lives if
the experiment works.
K.P.
Arlington High School
3/25/04
I would continue the preliminary research with more animals to verify the artificial
blood is as safe as possible for human testing. Since she is possibly the
most qualified person to conduct the research, a group of respected peers should
work alongside her in administering the tests so that she can still be involved
with the project while dissolving any suspicions regarding the integrity of her
results. The amount of artificial blood should be injected in incremental amounts
so that any side effects might be observed early on and prevent any serious injuries
or reactions.
G.M.
Frisco High School
3/24/04
I would consent to letting her carry this experiment out. Though she may lose
money, there is always the chance that she could end up not only gaining money
but also saving other people's lives. After all of her research and time dedicated
to this proposal, she could more than likely carry this procedure out better than
anyone else. And if she is unsuccessful, her work may lead to a breakthrough in
the future. Losing money now is worth it if it will save lives in the future.
MH
Arlington High
3/24/04
I personally believe that there is absolutely no way that she could carry out
a completely non-biased study. No matter what, she will want that money, and she
will always lean toward passing the artificial blood rather than an indifferent
approach. They should let her still be involved, but not as the head of the research.
That way, the research that is done will be unbiased and everyone can get the
real truth about how the blood works.
JP
Arlington High School
3/24/04
I would not allow her to carry out this research but if I truely believed that
she was the best qualified person to carry out the research then I would hire
someone to watch over her moves 24/7.
3/24/04
I would allow the scientists to carry out her research. If this scientist must
know what she is doing if she is willing to do this on humans. I think that in
the medical field some times we have to take financial risk to try and help save
lives. I would not establish any special conditions. The only alternative would
be if within a year or so if there was no improvement in her research then to
drop it.
RD
Arlington High School
3/24/04
I think this would be a big medical breakthrough that could save many lives. It
would reduce alot of the danger that comes with reciveing blood transfusions.
Therefore, I would let this scientist carry out the resarch because she is the
most qualified person for this project. To make sure that the resarch is carried
out honestly, I would require daily progress reports and have a superviser above
her. This way I think this project could be done more effectively.
G.S
Arlington High School
3/24/04
I think the scientist should go through with the artificial blodd expirement.
The research to her is the most understanable. Despite the financial problems,
the chance of letting her do the research shows the she is responsible and able
enough to go on with the research. Artificial blood could save many peoples lives.
KF
Arlington High School
3/24/04
I think the researcher should be allowed to continue her research on artificial
blood. The outcome could be benificial to many people. If a universal blood could
be found there would not be a shortage on rare blood types. I would however, have
someone else monitor the progress of her research. If she is the one funding the
project, she could alter the records in order to make money and not have the greater
good of the people in mind. If someone monitors her work then there is less margine
for error.
LC
Arlington High School
3/24/04
As head of the IRB review board, I would allow the scientist to conduct the artificial
blood expirements, but also carefully observe the project to ensure honesty is
kept & that no lives are in danger.
EG
Harwood Junior High school
3/24/04
I would allow the scientist to carry out her research. Choosing her for the research
seems to be the best solution. She understands the experiment with artificial
blood the best. Choosing her would be a risk due to her financial situations;
however taking this risk would be one I would be willing to take. If her experiments
are successful then this could save millions of lives and it would help
her company.
MT
Arlington High School
3/24/04
Although the woman could stand to gain a considerable amount of profit from the
artificial blood if it is a sucess, i believe this risky research could be beneficial
to many lives. This research could lead to a getway of other life-saving breakthroughs
if it is given a chance.
KH
Arlington High School
3/24/04
I think that the scientist should be allowed to carry out the research if it could
end up saving peoples lifes. One of the research conditions should be another
scientist watching over her work and procedures to make sure she is properly using
it as it should be used. She should also test the new artificial blood on humans
to make sure that it works as it should and that is completely safe and will cause
no harm.
A.F.
Arlington High School
3/24/04
My reaction toward letting this woman show some sort of medial break though on
artificial blood is yes. I think I would let her show her potential well being
to a factor that could save many lives in the future even though it was a financial
risk. It is a risk worth taking to probably saving many lives in the near future
of the experiment is continued.
AM
Arlighton High School
3/23/04
I would allow this scientist at the medical center to carryout the atrificial
blood experiment. Throughout her research, it seems that she understands the research
more than anyone else working on this, so she is best qualified to decide whether
or not this would work with humans. If this is successful, which she seems sure
of, then the company will earn a lot of money. Some conditions the research would
have to be done under are close research over and over to make sure the artificial
blood is successful, as well as find a human to test this product on. Proceeding
with this experiment would help out the company which is why they should allow
this experiment to continue.
L F
Lake Highlands Freshman Center
3/23/04
I think that the scientist should be allowed to carry out the research. She probably
knows more about artificial blood than any other person in her field because of
her experience with her company. Also she will probably be more persevered toward
the research because of her personal gain. If she does poorly than she would lose
a lot of money.
R.A.
Arbor Creek
3/23/04
If I had a part in the IRB, I would consider this a hard decision because the
researcher is risking her own money and success. She might, therefore, be completly
biased. However, this research is very important and would give scientists the
opportunity to save thousands of lives. I would allow the researcher to continue
the study under another equally knowledgable person that is not partial to either
outcome and not a part of the company. In research it is crucial that all participants
and executers remain unbiased so that the results may be taken seriously to advance
science.
M.B.
Frisco High School
3/23/04
I think that it would be unethical to let her carry out her experiment, due to
her financial arrangement in this case. She then could alter the experiment to
make her company sell the artificial blood, thus making her more wealthy.
3/23/04
I would permit this particular scientist to research and experiment on artificial
blood. Since this person makes a career out of
researching artificial blood, I would grant this person my permission because
it sounds like that is her expertise. If this was not
the case however, and the scientist had not majored in the field of artificial
blood I would then be somewhat reluctant to the
expirement. Artificial blood could be a great discovery in the medical field and
it may help millions of people if the expirement
works.I understand that it may take a great amount of money on the issue but if
she is willing to take a chance on something she has made a career out of then
I give her my consent. All the scientist has to do is get a volunteer that is
willing to be the
"expirement".
L.E.
Fossil Ridge High School
3/23/04
I think that the research could prove invaluble so she should be allowed to continue
her research under the supervision of an appointed specialist. The specialist
should be an independent research who works outside her company that way any misconduct
on her part can be reported back to the IRB. This compromise allows her research
to go forward based on the improvements it could make in society on not for the
experimentor's financial gain.
SP
Arlington High
3/23/04
I think they should let the scientist test the artificial blood on herself while
being supervised by another person, so that they
wouldnt think she was lying just to get the money. I think she is doing a good
thing trying to save millions of lives. I think we
should appreciate her for trying something somebody else wouldnt have done and
i dont think we should think she would do
something negative because she is doing something positive. I think no matter
what she would be honest. But i also think it
would be hard to carry it out.
CS
Arlington High School
3/23/04
I do not think i would let her do it because she already is not financially stable.
She could get more money if it works but if it
don't then she is out of money. she needs to think about the pros and cons before
she even trys to start this experiment. It
would be a good thing maybe but she needs to find out the whole information first.
She would be putting others at risk by not
knowing all the facts. Maybe she could wait until she gets more money saved for
projects to start the whole process.
KU
Arlington High School
3/23/04
I think that the scientist who proposed to carry out the research on artificial
blood for humans should not be allowed to. The financial problem is why i disagree.
If they can get the money thats needed then i would reconsider. Also, there are
risks involved if the project doesn't work like expected. I think the scientist
needs to be positive about her plan before she considers begining. Ethically,
the project doesn't seem reasonable to consider testing.
L. R.
Arlington High School
3/23/04
I believe that her opinion would be biased due to her financial involvement in
the case. Therefore, I believe that it is unethical to have her participate and
or head the research process.
NW
Arlington High School
3/22/04
As head of the IRB, I would allow the scientist to carry out the research because
she has the best knowledge of the artificial
blood product than other scientists. Even for the financial problems, I would
take the risk in letting her do the research if she
proves to be responsible and honest enough to carry out this research, but with
proper fundings. I personally think that
artificial blood would save lots of people lives in this world, and we should
take the risk to make this happen; but before we
test it on humans, we should test it on animals first and see what the results
might be, and if it works; i think she should go for
it.
A.C.
Frisco High School
3/22/04
Don't most research laboratories produce and test out procedures or drugs that
they will eventually use to sell for profit? To me, this seems like a standard
practice among most companies, however, we must not always take only one party's
word. Before proceeding with putting the blood into humans, similar tests by other
companies or independent entities must be conducted since artificial blood transfusions
are incredibly risky experiments. If the results turn out to parallel the scientists
orgininal conclusions, then she may proceed with human experimentation while other
scientists do the same to make sure that the results are 100% accurate.
A.E.M.
Frisco High School
3/22/04
I would let her work as the head of the research because she knows the most about
the artificial blood. I don't think she would be dishonest, because the blood
will have to work with humans for her company to get any money. Also it will help
out with the people who need the blood.
K.R.
LHFC
3/21/04
I believe the owner of the company should be allowed to have the artificial blood
tested on herself but i dont think she should be in charge or know the results
until the end of all experimentation. Either that of she should have someone else
test it on themselves and be in charge. I dont think she can handle both responsibilities
although I believe she will be honest in whichever one she does.
A.C.
Lake Highlands Freshman Center
3/20/04
I would allow her to work on the case because she is one of the best qualified
scientist. She should be kept under strong supervision by other experts in order
to control some of the research. Under some circumstances, the articial blood
may serve as a last resort and this would offer an opportunity to test its affectiveness
by the new scientist. If she seems she can take the responsibility of testing
the products then I think you should let her and see what results come back from
her experiments.
M.H.
LHFC
3/19/04
I believe that the scientist should be able to carry out the research for on artificial
blood. If the product is successful, then it can make major improvements is today's
medical world; people needing immediate blood transfusions would have faster blood
access (no need to wait for a donor with the same type of blood). Artificial blood
would also diminish if not erase, the small percentage of people that get infected
with diseases through blood transfusions because artificial blood is prefabricated
and one would know exactly where that blood came from. The only conditions that
might be put on the scientists is that the subjects themselves are well aware
of what they are participating in and have understood and agreed to what they
would be submitting themselves to. Of course, if immediate dangers arise after
research has begun, the research would have to be undoubtedly stopped. The scientist,
also, should be well aware of her loss in case the research does not come out
as expected.
L.L.
Socorro High School
3/19/04
An artificial blood would of course be beneficial to the medical field. The most
knowledgeable person in this particular field proposes that research be done on
human subjects. She also happens to own the company who would produce it and gain
profit. Should we let her run this research? Yes, she is the most knowledgeable
- No, she will alter the results for financial gain. It could be either because
now we're questioning human integrity. Is the average human on this planet honest?
How far will the average person go to make money? I don't know the answers to
these questions. We can make some inferences about her character though.
The person we are discussing is working to revolutionize an aspect of medicine
(already not the average person). She probably went to college and medical school
to learn information which has already been discovered, and she has made her own
discoveries which might be taught to college and medical students in the future.
She could have been in charge of the successful animal tests. These few inferences
display the characteristics of determination, intelligence, reliability, and an
interest in science. A person with all these qualities, in my opinion, has an
integrity level higher than that of the average person. With integrity comes honesty.
Theoretically, as the head of the IRB, I would allow her to carry out this research
because of her background. This isn't a strong reason, but given the limited information
about her character, it is the strongest reason I can think of.
If I actually was the head of the IRB this would require some more deliberation
because people do unexpected things, especially for money. There could be multiple
alternatives or special conditions in which the research could be conducted, but
that is an ethics case in itself.
W.Z.N.
Lake Highlands Freshman Center
3/18/04
This discussion is confused. Any sort of new agent proposed for medical use probably
was developed by someone who has something to gain from its use, or else nothing
would motivate them to develop the product. Therefore no special conditions exist
for this scientist. As for the human test subjects, the authorities, quite fallible
themselves, must validate such judgements as test safety no matter the scientist
before testing. Lastly, teams of scientists, not just one, perform experiments,
so the risk of this speculatory 'funny business' is largely imagined. The doctor
should continue to lead the experiments.
MCM
STHSP
3/18/04
As the head of the IRB, I would not let the woman continue until she explained
to me how the artificial blood works. But yes, if I completely understood the
blood, I would allow her to carry out her study and reserch and provide proper
funding.
C. H.
Lake Highlands Freshman Center
3/18/04
I would let her continue the research because it is for a good cause, saving lives,
she would just be supervised and made sure that everything was done in a correct
manner.
D.A.
MED-HIGH
3/18/04
Although the artificial blood sounds intriguing enough, personally I don't consider
it one of the greatest milestones in medical breakthroughs as it has been presented.
The case stated that it "should" be safe for humans. That did not sway
me in any way to support it-sounding as if the research is highly debabtable and
has not undergone enough testing. Also considering the fact that the main researcher
is also the founder, I would have to disaprove of the testing or require a research
team that was in no way affiliated with the founder.
J.M.
Med-High
3/14/04
As head of the IRB board I would allow her to continue and do SOME of the research,
but under some limitations. Since she is the one with the most knowledge about
the artificial blood.
3/13/04
I would allow her to work on the case because she is on of the best qualified
but I would keep her under strong supervision by allowing other experts to control
some of the research also.
M.H.
3/12/04
I think that the scientist should be able to test her product on herself.
I do not think that it would be hard for her to carry out this test honestly.
She is the best person to test this on because she knows everything about the
product including its side effects. Also if it is tested on her and something
bad happens then no innocent people will get hurt. However I do believe
that one of her colleagues should be in control of the test. Another person
should be in charge of collecting data and recording the results. Because
although she might want to be honest since she has spent so much time and money
into this product; accordingly, she might be tempted to tamper or manipulate the
results and data of the experiment
A.M.
FRISCO HIGH SCHOOL
3/11/04
As head of the IRB, I believe that this research would be critical in saving the
lives of many people who suffer blood disorders, severe injuries, and would lessen
the need for mass blood donations. This new technology would enable doctors to
administer 100% pure, uncontaminated blood to people to whom it would mean life
or death. Moreover, I believe that although this scientist also owns the company
in which she is researching for, she would indeed be the most qualified individual
to head up the project. Like anyone, though, the ethical line between success
and harm is fine, and no one should be burdened completely with that role. A committee
of qualified individuals should also be overseeing all of her progress and experiments.
With capable peers, this scientist would be able to make sound ethical decisions,
promote medical science, and make a little money on the side as well.
A. G.
Frisco High School
3/11/04
As head of the Human Subject Research review board (IRB) I would approve of the
scientist proceeding with her study on artificial blood because, the research
is assuring that this woman's far reaching background in this field should certainly
be able to implement her research. When testing on humans there should be two
seperate tests implemented, one being the actual research that she is doing on
the blood with human beings, two being a false testing on the blood with human
beings so that at the conclusion of the testing results of both tests may be weighed
for validity.
B.
Euless Jr. High
3/11/04
I think that the scientist should be able to test the product on them. She knows
the most about it and if something bad
happens, no innocent people will get hurt. However since it is her product there
should be someone there to take the results
and data. The person to conduct the experiment should be unbiased but they should
know something about the product. I
believe that someone should be there because the scientist might want her product
to work so bad that she might manipulate
the data or results.
A.M.
FRISCO HIGH SCHOOL
3/9/04
As head of the Human Subject Research review board (IRB) I would approve of the
scientist proceeding with her study on artificial blood. However, I think that
before human subjects are used in the study, a separate trial should be run in
another lab to verify her preliminary results. The results from a lab that is
less financially involved should be compared to the results from the scientist
whose company will benefit from this medical breakthrough. To encourage full cooperation,
an agreement should be signed by all parties that patent rights remain with the
original research company and the company verifying the data will not sell the
idea or use the research information for their own monetary gain. To further prevent
bias and ensure objectivity, a committee from the IRB, including myself should
review the data and be present during the first testing of human subjects.
B. I. A.
Trinidad High School
3/9/04
I think that because the research is promising and this particular woman has an
in depth background in the field she should certainly be allowed to carry out
the research. If the scientist is the most qualified and could conduct the best
research, there should be no doubt she is the best suited for the position.
Donating blood is great, and it is proven to help those in need, but if this woman
has the ability to make an artificial blood that is proven successful with animals
and promises the same on humans, she should be granted the ability to research
and develop. Since the scientist is linked with the company there would probably
be some question of scandalous activity, but overall I think it wouldn’t
be a problem. I don’t think any real precautions would have to be taken,
but to make everyone happy, there would probably have to be some sort of supervision
or a check system. The scientist would probably have to present her work and an
in depth analysis of her findings every week or so, just to make sure the funding
was being used properly.
A.C.
Frisco High School
3/8/04
The potential medical benefits of this product are too important to not condone
moving forward with human subject testing. However, the financial bias of the
woman in charge could prejudice the results of the experiment. Therefore, I would
propose that she assemble a RD team to work cooperatively with a RD team assembled
by the IRB. With a larger group of experimenters it will not only serve to keep
everyone honest, with so many others looking over their shoulder, but also allow
the study of larger sample groups so that testing may be done with more statistically
reliable results. Her colleagues will be able to gather their information and
take their cues from her so the program will benefit from her knowledge, and the
IRB will have people in place to ensure that everything is carried out in the
manner prescribed by the collaborative efforts of the two teams. The subjects
must be completely knowledgeable of the risks involved in the experiment but must
remain blind to which team(s) they are being tested under, in order to prevent
prejudice against them.
3/7/04
I believe that this research is valid and has the potential to save many lives.
Because of her experienve on the subject I would allow the head scientist who
was working on the project to continue because she had the most knowledge of the
subject and would be the most qualified to test and research it. However, because
of her personal interests in the matter I would assume that she might be tempted
to 'smudge' the results in her favor, therefore I would appoint someone who had
no connection to that particular scientist, or the company she worked for to assist
her and document all of their experiments, findings, etc... I would also request
to see all of their findings and 'check up' on everything that they were doing
to make sure that everything was legitimate and that there was no 'funny business'.
T.A.G.
Southwest High School
3/7/04
As the head of the IRB, I would allow her to carry out her research. She should
get to because she is the best person to conduct the research. Also, the potential
benefits from the research are much greater than the risks. Artificial blood could
help thousands of people in the future compared to hurting a few number of people
in a test group. It would not be justified to not try at all. I mean, if they
don't even try than how are we going to ever know if it would have really worked
or not. if it works for animals and is completely safe for them, then i
think the artificial blood product would also work for humans. Although, she knows
the most about this product, I would hire someone just as capable and experienced
as her to work along side her. This scientist could check her work for mistakes
and give me reports on the research.
N.S.
SHS
3/7/04
I would allow the scientist to head up the research on the human subjects under
the condition that she appoint other scientists to administer the tests and record
the data and results in concurrence with the IRB's own appointees to the project.
No one that is personally or financially invested in research this important or
with this much money to gain can be solely appointed to the task because of their
bias and possibly too strong an urge to succeed. I question the ethics of the
head of the company, and therefore would want someone I trusted working along
with her trustees as a precautionary measure to assure that the research was properly,
safely, objectively, and legitimately carried out.
3/7/04
I feel that the benefits of this research would revolutionize medicine and save
countless lives if it was able to reach the field. I think that if I were the
head of the IRB I would take all of the options into consideration but I would
ultimately let it progress into human testing under an unreal amount of scrutiny
and require a lot of test subjects before it was officially deemed absolutely
safe. I would realize that her financial involvement and her expertise would clash
in the minds of the board and that is why I would demand constant monitoring for
all cases. I would have to be completely sure that the work was done right and
nothing was doctored that would allow for untruthful results. If more than a certain
percentage of the test subjects in the study were negatively affected by the substance,
I would stop the study and have them take their product out of the human
stage of testing. I feel that if it could end up helping countless numbers of
people then the human stage of testing must be entered under very tight
reins. I am a firm believer in advancements that could benefit patients as much
as this could.
J.VW.
Southwest High School
3/7/04
As head of the IRB, I would allow this scientist to carry out her research because
this study could be very beneficial to saving the lives of many humans. I think
she should be able to be head of this study because she shows that she is the
most qualified for the position, but she shouldn't have all the control in it.
I would send one of my colleagues to assist her in the research. My colleague
will give me a detail report on everything that happens, so that the scientist
doesn't give any false information. We never know she might just be in this for
the money not caring what symptoms might come out of using it in humans.
E.H.
SHS
3/5/04
As heads of the IRB we have come to a conclusion involving the case of whether
or not to allow a top researcher in the field of artificial blood to conduct her
research regardless of her fiscal involvement, because of the impact it would
have on society. To see that she carries this out honestly and too the best of
her ability we will set up some special criteria that she must meet. First, she
must combine employees from her company and our IRB board that are well versed
in the area of artificial blood to work together to get the job done. Second,
she must be willing to subject herself to random evaluations and deadlines. However,
the deadlines will depend solely on the extenuating circumstances. When the evaluations
are made, the deadlines will be assessed simply to see that all research is conducted
honestly, and funding is not being taken advantage of. Finally, when the final
deadline for cease of funding is reached we will asses the progress one last time
to see if it would be in our best interest and the interest of the general populace
to continue funding her research.
RR, RP and BB
Mineral Wells HS
3/5/04
The scientist will be allowed to carry out her research on human subjects under
a few conditions.
First, a team of experts will be assigned to assist her. She will have time to
educate the team about her research to avoid a possible lawsuit against the IRB,
and she will have full liability in case of mistake.
Second, the IRB will be permitted to observe her procedures in the lab or through
a one-way mirror. As soon as results are obtained the IRB will be first to view
them.
Third, regarding the subject, he/she will be allowed certain knowledge of the
procedures to make an informed decision about whether or not to continue (this
will happen before subject signed any contract or release).
Because she is aware of the potential loss or gain, she is obviously confident
in her research and how it can advance the medical field. If she is willing to
trust her research to save lives, we have confidence in her.
DT, MC, CF
Mineral Wells High School
3/5/04
We think that the scientist involved with the artificial blood should not do the
testing herself because of her financial involvement. We believe that it would
benefit the medical center more if she instead was to train at least three other
scientists to carry out the experiments for the artificial blood.
Some advantages of her training three other scientists are that the results will
be more precise, more people will trust the results, and the testing could be
finished faster. With more people doing the testing it is less likely that they
will give wrong information. Also people will trust the results more if the three
scientists did the testing. If there were three people working on the artificial
blood the results would come a lot faster than if only one person were doing the
experiments. Also the scientist who is financially involved could be a forth person
who works with them. She could either supervise the other three or work with them.
One disadvantage of only her doing the testing by herself is that if she were
to work on the tests by herself she might give wrong results so that the tests
would be successful no matter what. If she does give the wrong results then people
who get the blood during emergencies might not get helped at all. People who get
the bad blood might sue the company and the company will lose money anyway. Plus,
after a couple of failed transfusions, the IRB would stop using the artificial
blood and the company will go bankrupt.
If the blood tests were successful then there would be a lot of advantages in
the field of science. First of all, it would take some pressure off blood banks
because they often run low on their supply on human blood. Secondly, since the
blood does not need to be refridgerated, it can be carried on ambulances easier.
Next, the blood will never need to be matched because one type fits all. Finally
and most importantly, since the blood does not come from a human donor then there
is no risk of spreading diseases like HIV, AIDS, and other bacterial diseases.
That is why the scientist who owns the company should not be able to do the research
by herself and why she should be able to train three people to do the research
for her.
RY, KT, CB
Mineral Wells, High School
3/5/04
I would definitely allow her to test on human subjects. It is worth the risk to
loose some money over many people’s lives. Even if she didn’t do the
research right away, I would hope that it would be conducted very soon.
A.H., H.H., J.P.
Mineral Wells H.S.
3/5/04
We believe that this case should be carried out. There could be a lot to lose
but if the experiment is mastered there could be a lot more to gain. The following
guidelines are to clarify the integrity of the experiment.
· Have someone who is partially knowledgeable in this field to see that
she properly does the experiment.
· Have them hooked up to monitors to show their blood pressure and heart
rae to identify if they’re nervous or hiding a
mistake.
If these guidelines are carried out them this experiment could be a major success
in the medicine-science field.
A.A., T.C., C.F.
Mineral Wells High School
3/5/04
As the IRB board members it is our job to decide whither or not to allow the scientist,
who came up with the idea to make artificial blood that worked on humans, to continue
with the research and experiments. To do this there are many different components
we have to analyze. First, the whole board must decide and agree on one solution.
Next, the board is divided into two different fractions. The first group thinks
she should carry out the experiments. The other half thinks she might modify the
results to make sure her company does not lose money. The last & most important
component is her financial involvement.
Also, to make the best decision you have to list facts you know and facts you
don’t know, but need to know. We know that research could make a life and
death difference for many people. We know that human nature is to succeed at all
costs, even if this nature is subconscious. We know that this research is her
idea and it is not fair to take it away from her completely. We also know that
results from animal testing sometimes varied from the results from human testing.
Other times they turned out the same. You never know which is which. Lastly, we
know that the outcome of these experiments could make her company go bankrupt
or turn it into a fortune 500 company that makes millions.
We do not know what her exact research is, and how the results have affected the
animal experiments so far, either for good or bad? We do not know what kind of
person she is, honest or sly? Overall, we do not have enough information or statistics
to make and accurate judgment about this situation.
From the information we are given, the solutions we decided on were to let her
company continue with the experiments and testing. But, we did apply a few stipulations.
Either she has to have someone that the board trusts, that is well educated, to
supervise the research & experiments to make sure the results do not get changed.
If not that, then a control group would be set up to do the exact same experiment,
with no incentive to modify the results. The other stipulation is that the results
of each of the three phases must be reviewed and approved by the Federal Food
& Drug Administration (FDA).
T.C., J.D. & K.W.
Mineral Wells High School
3/5/04
As heads of the IRB, we have decided to let her go on with her research on a few
conditions. She will be asked to train a scientist who is neither employed nor
involved with her company to act as the head of the project. This scientist will
head up the experiment and she will be minimally involved only checking every
now and then to make sure that everything is going smoothly. She will be paid
for training the outside scientist and will still get a percentage of the profits
from the sale of artificial blood. Finally, a deadline will be voted on by the
IRB board and funding will cease unless there are extenuating circumstances, which
will again be assessed by the board. Because the scientist is an outside individual,
he will be paid regardless of the outcome.
RR, RP and BB
Mineral Wells HS
3/5/04
As head of the medical center's IRB I would give my consent and allow the scientist
to proceed in the testing of human subjects. I would insist that the subjects
understand the risks they are taking by participating in the experiment and inquire
about the validity of the statement regarding preliminary research on animals,
making sure that the research does prove to be safe for humans. I would allow
this experiment to take place, taking the next step and using human subjects,
because of the potential medical advances and life saving techniques its success
could generate. I would personally confront the scientist and let her know of
the concerns I have regarding her honesty die to the financial ties to the experiment's
outcome, allowing her to let me know where she stands on the issue, and emphasizing
the importance of separating the two factors. I would insist that she work in
collaboration with another highly qualified scientist to minimize decisions made
that would directly correlate with her finances, allowing a less bias perspective
to be included in the study. I would make sure that ample attention is paid to
her results, and order that the testing be repeated by different scientists and
new subjects (assuming the health concerns are minimal and procedures are safe)
before approving the research or allowing her company to begin manufacturing the
artificial blood. Each step of the experiment and its results should be carefully
monitored and double-checked, in order to minimize bias that might occur in this
experiment's procedures, always emphasizing the importance of the subject's health
and safety.
L.K.
Southwest
3/5/04
I would let the scientist carry out this investigation because it could be beneficial
to mankind. I would only allow the investigation to go on under a few circumstances:
there would be some advisors from my IRB board to supervise her investigation
and she would document all of her findings and observations. I think that she
is the best person for the job and she will be very valuable to the research.
I think that she may be able to discover something that is very crucial and it
may save many people's lives. The scientist is also taking a risk by doing this
research and could loose all of her money. But she may not be fair and that is
why we are supervising her.
3/5/04
As the head of the human subject research review board I would let the research
carry on but with conditions. The research would be extremely beneficial if it
succeeded so I think that that is reason enough to let the scientist carry out
their research. It is extremely great that the scientist heading the research
is the best qualified because she understands artificial blood products the best.
But since there is a lot of argument about the money situation I would give the
research team a supervisor and I would also make them keep record of absolutely
everything.
A.R.
The Academy of IISD
3/5/04
I would allow the scientist to proceed with leading the experiments on humans.
yet there is no way one person can be completely unbiased about what she is doing
when those kinds of stipulations are involved greed affects us all. so I would
have her continue to be the head of he experiment along with a colleague of my
own to ensure that nothing she reports can be even the slightest untruthful by
having my colleague stay along side her and give me another detailed report. And
as for extra precautions my colleague will be female and only guaranteed the pay
I am granting her so that she can't be persuaded to falsely acknowledge any information.
3/4/04
I would give her my approval with some circumstances. She must be supervised at
all experimental procedures, give a specific report of the processes that were
made, and present the data, observations and new breakthroughs in the artificial
blood.
M.F.
New Diana ISD
3/4/04
I would let the scientist conduct the experiment, because she was the most qualified...but
i would definitely have her monitored at all times, just because i dont know if
she is a honest person or not. Since this would be such a beneficial study I think
that the person that shoud conduct it has to be chosen wisely otherwise i would
find someone new to conduct it.
C.T.
New Diana High School
3/4/04
Well, I would certainly let her be a part of the research, and even let her do
some of the research. Only under frequent supervision,of corse, so that the "so
called results," were true, and the outcome not just to make her or anyone
else look good.
S.J.
New Diana High School
3/4/04
I believe that the scientist should not be allowed to carry out her research because
she is too closely tied into the financial aspect of the research. She has both
too much to gain and too much to lose if the research is a success or a failure.
I propose that someone else be brought in to carry out the research.
3/4/04
I think I would let her do the research since she is the most qualified... but
then again I would have someone supervising her, just to make sure everything
is done honestly.
T.M.
South Texas High School for Health Professions
3/3/04
The first and foremost problems with this case is the financial involvement of
the scientist. No matter what the intentions the scientist has, in no way can
he/she be 100% faithful to the medical field because money shapes the world. Money
shapes the way the scientist will work on the artificial blood, failure is not
only a set back for the scientist, but it is also financial loss. Because of the
the doctor's affiliation with the business, I would vote that she do tests on
primates before humans. After this experiment I would like follow up reports and
if everything went well then the scientist would have my vote. The average human
contains a large amount of blood more than just two or three pints, so only introducing
small amounts would enable your immune system to filter out the blood if something
went wrong. In my eyes, trying to progress with experiments is much more valuable
then compiling data.
3/3/04
The scientist proposing the evidence should be able to carry out the study of
artificial blood. The patients that the artificial blood will be tested on are
in risk of dying or they would not be needing the blood. If they fully understand
the positive and negative outcomes and agree with the procedure then it should
be approved. With the ability to make artificial blood, the blood supply will
never run out as in past cases. Blood types like O- that are very rare will be
in great supply. The risk the scientist and her company will take will be
accepted because it is to improve science and human life. With a much greater
supply of blood, many disease symptoms (Ex: Sicklecell and Hemophilia) may be
relieved with artificial blood at a lower cost than real blood.
D.T.J.
Trinidad High School
3/3/04
I think I would let here go threw with the project because for one you can save
lives, and who knows other species in the
world. I would set up a lab just for her and have it under raps until she is finished,
but if she failed there would be no word of
this ever happened.
J.N.
Molina High School
3/3/04
Well, i guess it would be ok to allow them to do the research but first they would
need to show the commitee consistant possitive results and someone has to be constatntly
watching over them to make sure that everything is done right and if any complications
occur they are there to handle any type of situation.
3/2/04
As head of the IRB, I would propose a team of scientist to research this. I would
not under any circumstances put this lady on my team. I would use her as a necessary
resource guide. If her only concern is for human life, she would be glad to offer
her resources in this way. If the out come was successful, I would honor and reward
the lady highly. Politics play too big a part in our society today. I would not
want to play around with human life.
co
New Diana High School
3/2/04
If the scientist knows what she is doing, I would let her carry out the research
experiment. If there is a problem over the conditions of money, they could find
a way to raise some. If this experiment turns out correctly, it would be worth
it because it will be saving the lives of others and that is a very important
aspect to look at. If the scientist is not completely sure of the honesty, she
could find a way to work around it or work it out.
b.m.
molina high school
3/2/04
In my opinion I think that the scientist should be allowed to preform the experiment
with artificial blood if it will help save the lives of people. Any research that
is made will help to improve medicine. As a condition for the experiment
to take place I would suggest that a contract is made in which the volunteer is
aware of the risks. In addition to make sure that the appropriate measures are
taken during the experiment.
B.S.
Molina High School
3/2/04
I would allow this scientist to conduct her work, but with boundaries. If she
is the best qualified person for the job, than it would be imprudent not to
allow her to work on the project. Though her qualifications attest her to be
worthy of the job, I do feel that there should be other scientist and researchers
working with her to prevent her from skewing the results in her favor. There
should be a group of scientists conduction the experiments and compiling and
comparing the results; a “team” of sorts. There researche would
be watched with close scrutiny. I would appoint scientists to work with her,
and I would also form a team to supervise the research. These people would be
there to make sure the experiments are conducted fairly and correctly. They
would make sure the research is conducted in a controlled environment banning
the company from having any involvement. The scientist would be the only member
from the company permitted to have a hand in the research.
J.N.J.
The Academy Of Irving
3/2/04
In the subject of getting approval on research on human subjects, my opinion is
if the patient is 100% sure he/she is positive and is aware of all risks, you
can go ahead. But if the patient does not understand all risks, you are not allow
to do any type of research. The patient would need to sign a consent form, stating
he/she understands everything that is going to happen.
I would approve your research, because if the artifical blood would save lives
why hold it from people. I wouldn't have any special conditions concerning the
research. Concerning other board members that don't want to approve it, because
their excuse is she wouldn't have any money to finish the research, there are
lot's of ways of raising money, especially from the commity that knows that
she wants to help out people and save lives.
J.L.
Socorro High School
3/1/04
I would not let her do the research because, during the study someone might get
hurt or killed. Even though it has been studied on animals, there is a difference
between humans and animals. I am also against the research because, That is the
same as cloning. You are making false blood to help save the lives of many people.
I am against cloning so I would be against the reseach. I would tell her
that im against it and then I would tell her she can do the research on her own
but she cant use the companies money. I know if the research is successful the
company can make a lot of money but that's just a chance the company will have
to take.
B.R.
M.E.Molina High School
3/1/04
I would allow her to carry out this research since in essence; this research would
be helping mankind if it goes through. The
financial aspect of this issue does cause a dishonesty factor, but shouldn't be
an issue.
3/1/04
I would let her continue with her research. She knows what she's doing so why
shouldn't I let her. I would just make sure that
she goes through all the safety precautions nessesary.
3/1/04
As president of the IRB you have two responsibilities as relate to this case,
both of which relate to safety. First is the integrity of the board, and secondly
is the independence of the research and quality of conclusions. When approving
research on human beings on must not only avoid situations that would compromise
the outcome of the experimental protocol, but also avoid the appearances of those
compromises. I would allow the human trials with modifications. A compromise might
be as follows: Proposing scientist would be the expert consultant to the IRB.
A knowledgeable scientist, with no financial interest in the outcome, would assemble
the research team and write the protocol and submit it to the IRB for approval.
The proposing scientist would also be the board’s liaison to the trial team.
She would have editorial rights in the fashioning of the final report but have
no say in the collection or interpretation of data. The conclusions would be those
of the trial team. This preserves the integrity of the trial and the reputation
of the proposing scientist in future trials she may be called upon to lead.
B.D.
Physics Teacher
Fossil Ridge High School
3/1/04
I think that she should be allowed to be involved in the research but she should
have to have a staff that is highly qualified but non-biased to assist in the
research. That way she can help them understand the product but they would
be able to separate their emotions and wallet from the issue and concentrate on
performing the research correctly
ADM
Euless Junior High
2/29/04
I believe the scientist should be able to conduct her research. This type of research
could save a countless number of lives. The board members of course and other
scientists would be involved in her work; it would not be completely her. Some
very educated people would follow up on her work, and the board members would
have to be convinced that her research is valid. We would not just take her up
on her word. Her research would be critically looked at, and go through many tests,
before it is allowed a chance to be used on people. So, even if she tried
to be dishonest, it would most likely be caught.
K.R.H.
Socorro High School
2/29/04
I believe that due to the possible medical breakthrough the artificial blood research
would provide, it would be unheard of to not allow the scientist to carry out
her research. However, because of her personal involvement, I would recommend
a second party be introduced into the picture to insure honest results of the
research. On one hand, it may seem unfair to the scientist who has worked so hard
on her research, but in order to insure concrete and honest advancing medical
break-throughs and more importantly, the safety of the future subjects, someone
else should be involved along with the scientist herself.
HCJ
Socorro High
2/29/04
As head of the IRB, I would let her carry out her research for the artificial
blood because she is the best for the job, but not alone. I would have a team
built for her to help her carry out her research and to make sure it is experimented
right and to the fullest ability. The researchers would need to keep a log of
what goes on during the experiments and what the results come out to be. This
would be checked by me periodically through out the tests. I would have her put
a hold on her business of artificial blood, so then if the blood does not have
a break through in medical technology , then maybe she won't lose as much money.
This discovery and research could save thousands of lives if it does work and
make medical history.
L. J.
The Academy of Irving ISD
2/29/04
I would go ahead with the investigation. the bottom line that we have to look
at is that if this does work it will save alot of lives. she obviously has spent
money on the reasearch and so if she does get alot of money then she deserves
it. i am a person who always beleives in second opinions, and so whatever outcome
she comes up with will be back up by a second scientist. this scientist will be
very educatd in this field but have no kind of contact or communication with the
other scientist, to make sure that there is no dishonesty going on. She should
also sign a contract or some sort of agreement stating that she is under oath
that if she is dishonest and we are to find out then her license will be stripped
against her. As i said before we should not look at how much money on person
gets, just at how many lives that one person could save.
A.M.
MANSFIELD-SUMMIT HIGH SCHOOL
2/29/04
My opinion on the new artificial blood for humans is to let the scietist test
it on some patients. if the blood works out, let her produce it. Even if it doesn't
work, it is her decision to make the blood because she owns the company.
2/29/04
I would allow her to carry out her research on the conditions that she makes a
very thorough report on the data she has, updating me and my collegues frequently.
The human test subjects would know of the financial situation and, obviously,
all of the risks involved. If there were a new artificial blood type that would
save lives, I say that it would be wourth the effort to find out if it would help
to at least branch off to other methods of blood transfusions and things as such
as this.
SR
2/29/04
As head of the IRB I would allow her to carry out this research. This woman is
the most qualified person to carry out this research. Why would I jeopardize the
efficiency of this research by removing her and replacing her with someone else?
That would just be wrong. She owns the artificial blood product company, so what.
She's trying to help save lives out there not make a profit. But since it does
create such controversy, I would establish special working conditions. I would
gather other scientist to work with her and have each retest each other's work,
just to keep the work as honest as possible and maintain some level of surveillance.
I, too, would have all the people involved in the project sign an "honesty"
contract.
J.I.S
Socorro High School
2/29/04
Yes, I would let the lady carry on her research. If it has to do with saving lives
of course I will, especially saving human being lives! If she is sure that this
artificial blood will benefit humans then there should be no standards she should
go by. And if it turns out to be helpful it would really increase the knowledge
in healthcare.
A.M.
Molina High School
2/28/04
I believe I would allow the company to do the research with the provision that
they allow me to send a representative from the IRB to monitor all experiments
done by the company so I could make sure that their "results" were the
real deal. I would also have the scientist working on it sign a contract saying
that she is completely liable for any problems that happen to come up while she
is doing her study. This would be done to further my lack of fault if something
does happen to go wrong.
J.H.
New Diana I.S.D.
2/28/04
As the head of the IRB, I would allow this scientist to carry out the research
considering that she's the best person to carry out this experiment qualifying
and understanding artificial blood. While conducting her research I will have
another person, basically on the same plane of knowledge, to observe and understanding
the process being made. Another way would be to have her write her own data and
giving it to me so we can revise and prove her honesty. The sooner she fails or
succeeds the sooner we will know on how to save lives or to just keep trying.
M.H.
Molina High School
2/28/04
I would not let her work on the project direct. I would keep her up to date on
all developements and tell researchers to talk to her for any information they
need. My reason for this is I don't believe thatthat she could provide a good
opinion due to her involvement financially.
Molina High School
2/28/04
As head of the IRB I think she should be able to carry out her research for her
experiment because she is the most suited for it. This experiment would be extremely
beneficial to many people who need blood where they may be none of their type.
Since she also owns the company that relies on the success of this experiment
there will need to be special conditions. I would ask other board members to see
if they would be interested in this experiment also. They will be her assistant.
The assistant would keep the notes and records of what she does in this experiment
to make sure everything is correct and safe for humans. I believe these conditions
will be able to please everyone.
D.L.
Moises Molina High School
2/28/04
As head of the IRB I would allow her to do her research. Before she did her research
I would make sure she knows that I was counting on her to do it honestly. I think
that you would just have to trust her as a person and hope that she won't let
the money influence her decisions.
L.S.
New Diana
2/27/04
As head of the IRB, I believe that the scientist should be able to do her own
research on the new artificial blood; matters of financial risk should be isolated
from consideration as to whether or not she should be allowed to conduct the research.
The possible advantages of this new knowledge outweigh any risk associated with
personal investments. If the scientist is willing to gamble with her company,
that is her decision. I believe that it is necessary that this scientist do her
own research due to the fact that no one is more knowledgeable about every facet
of its composition and side-effects on humans (if any). To ensure that partiality
due to her personal involvement is curtailed to its fullest extent, a review board
composed of qualified personnel should be utilized to supervise and monitor her
research to keep bias to an absolute minimum.
The possible ramifications of this experimentation could be ground-breaking; since
the preliminary animal testing offered promising results, the human tests are
likely to be successful. If this is the case, medicine as we know it could experience
a new revolution--blood shortages would be a thing of the past, and this artificial
blood would be readily available for use in medical emergencies, car crashes,
and other disasters that may possibly occur.
W.M.
Rio Hondo High School
2/27/04
She should be allowed to conduct the study. She is the most qualified person for
the job. However, because of her involvement with the company and her possible
gains, there should be others involved in the study to see that the way she conducts
the experiment is ethical.
JP
Summit High School
2/27/04
I think that I first try to find someone who was basically on the same level as
the scientist as to sort of watch what goes on and see that when the time comes
that person will be able to approve or disprove what the head scientist says.
I would approve her to carry out her research under the agreement that she signs
a contract saying that she's liable for what she says and that she would allow
herself to be under some supervision. I think that if she is allowed and it turns
out that this artificial blood does work than it will be a big boost for healthcare.
2/27/04
I believe that as long as this lady has a committee or another member of a group
overlooking her studies, she should be able to conduct her experiment. As long
as she explains her actions to the supervisor or group in charge of her becase
after all she is the most qualified for the job. I believe that the people deserve
only the most qualified people working on their lives and future, therefore it
shold be this lady.
K.H.
Summit High School
2/26/04
I think that the study could be very beneficial, and could save a lot of lives.
A person's financial gain should not be a factor in saving human lives, but if
it is there a few precautionary measures that could be taken to make sure the
job is done honestly. The argument that her financial advancement might
be more important to her than medical advancement is a good one. So is the argument
that she is fully qualified to do the job. If I were head of the IRB I would allow
her to do the research but only under total surveillance. I wouldn't try and find
someone else to do the job because, while you are out trying to get another person,
people are dying. The sooner the research is confirmed the sooner you can start
saving lives. I would make sure that everything being done was recorded and video
taped. She would be obligated to sign a contract stating that all information
derived at by me is correct and totally honest, before the medical center would
consider her research. In the medical field I believe that everyone's main focus
should be saving human lives. If one person can be saved with artificial blood
then it is all well worth it.
C.B.
SHS
2/26/04
I believe that she should be allowed to carry out her research. This research
could help to save many lives, and this product should be fully developed. Even
though the scientist who proposes this research is the most qualified to conduct
it, there needs to be a group of scientist that are in charge along with her.
This way she will be able to help with the research and it will still be done
objectively.
K.S.
Summit High School
2/26/04
As head of the IRB, I would allow the scientist to carry out the research experiment,
because it would be beneficial to millions of lives. I would allow to research
on her own, since she is the best qualified person to carry out the research due
to her understanding of the artificial blood product better than anyone else.
I would require her to write out her data and show how she did her experiment
so that I can hire other scientists that are not affiliation with her and the
company to repeat her experiment. I would give rewards to the scientist that found
any mistake from her experiment. This would create a tension in her to do a good
job and not to lie about her research solution. If she did her research successfully
then she would receive the credit and the other scientists just receive their
salary from repeating the experiment. This would convince her to be honest about
her research or other scientist can take the credit from her, and she would be
ashamed if the IRB knows that she lie about the experiment. I think that it's
worth a try to let her research on the artificial blood for the future improvements
on medicine.
T. D.
Summit High School
2/26/04
As head of the IRB, I would permit the woman to conduct her experiment with rules
and regulations. Such as she would have a team, but there would be someone else
as the team head. I would also have her pull funding from somewhere else in addition
to her pocket or that of her companies pocket. If it works though, all money and
success would go to her and her company. This would be just a precaution from
tempting her to hinder the experiment.
C.M.
Summit High School
2/26/04
I believe that she should be allowed to continue her research on humans. She should
be under the supervision of another scientist to make sure that she is doing everything
honestly. Since the artificial blood has already been proven safe for animals,
than there is no reason why it should not be tested on humans. Without her experiment
we will never know if she has found a medical break-through. Every subject should
be aware of the risks he or she will be taking. Everything she does must be written
down and dated for reference. Under these circumstances, I believe her research
will be a great benefit. If it does not work, then we can find a way to make it
work.
CAG
Summit High School
2/26/04
As head of the IRB, I would allow this woman to conduct the experiment with someone
fair and balanced to report to me if she is not working honestly. If this worked,
our company would make lots of money which is worth the risk. It could also help
save lives of other people needing this experiment. Because it worked well on
animals, I would allow her to test it on humans with their consent. They would
have to understand the risks.
L.
New Diana ISD
2/26/04
As head of the IRB, I would not let the scientist be in charge of the research.
Even though she is well qualified for the research, there's still a chance that
something could go wrong. If she was to lie, not only would she make herself look
bad, she would also make me as head of the IRB and the company look bad. If she
is scared about risking the company's money, she shouldn't even be during the
research. I would have to get someone else even thought they aren't as qualified
to do the job. Whether he/she messes up, the point is that they be truthful.
A.A.
Summit High School
2/26/04
I as the head of the IRB would definately have to review the studies very closely.
I would allow to go ahead with the experiment on humans; however I would make
it be only under the condition that another doctor that I would believe would
be well qualified would be consulted in the decisions. I would not risk losing
a possible cure. This could altimately save many peoples lives, especially during
blood shortages.
H.F.
New Caney High School
2/26/04
As a head of IRB, I would allow her to carry out this research under some restrict
conditions. Even though this research will take many risks, I would support her
company to do this experiment since it saves many lives. Risks always follow
in any experiments. If everyone fears to fail, then who is going to deal with
this business? IRB exist for this kind of businesses and for human being. Since
she is the best-qualified person to carry out research, this is a time to get
opportunity. I would work with her every time and employee other scientists from
anywhere who are also qualified and are not associated with her in privacy. Even
if the research is failed, there will be some benefits in medication at least
one.
C.K.
Summit High School
2/26/04
In my opinion, the research should be done. The artificial blood will be able
to help those in need. The proposal allows research to be done in order to help
the lives of many. Artificial blood will be able to be used in certain situation
when human blood is unable to be used.
The monetary problem is only an issue because the people are unwilling to take
chances in order to help better humanity.
The only conditions that will be given to her will :
1. The ones that are tested on will be given all the information and side-effects
that may seen.
2. The company and her own financial state will be the only effected by the outcome.
If she loses money, the only person she
can blame is herself. If they get the money, the study for humans will be expanded.
The search for expansion of medicine will not be found if people are unwilling
to take chances. Blood transfusions are not
always successful, and without another solution we are unable to save lives.
m
shs
2/26/04
As head of the IRB, of course I will allow her to continue her research. However,
this experiment is very complex and she will need more help. She cannot do the
entire experiment alone and needs the help of other scientist. If the artificial
blood proves to be beneficial to humans, this has the potential of saving a lot
of lives. This research experiment could quite possibly expand our knowledge and
skills in the health care profession.
A.B.
SHS
2/26/04
As head of IRB, I would allow her to proceed in this research. Because even though
there is a risk of the research project going downhill, there is also a chance
that the research could possibly save millions of lives.I would set some limits
though, I would appoint a team of people to work along with her and to make sure
that she didn't do anything sneaky and I would also appoint a chairperson to oversee
the overall projectand make sure things ran smoothly, and they wouldn't be able
to do research on the project unless the chairperson was there.
J.
SHS
2/26/04
As head of the IRB, I would allow her to carry out her research because she is
the expert on the subject, and she has more experience with the material than
anyone else, but she will have to do it under certain conditions. My conditions
would be:
1. To make sure that she does not do anything dishonest due to her financial involvement,
she will have to give me daily financial reports, progress reports on what she
did, what she discovered,and daily reports on the condition of the individuals
who are being tested on.
2. She will not neglect to stop the research when I think it is not giving the
results we expected, and if any of the patinet's health is poor due to the research.
Those are ther conditions I would give her in order for her to carry out her research.
S.A.C
Socorro High School
2/26/04
I would let her carry out her project because she is the only one that knows the
real effect and she knows the product better than anyone that knows about the
artificial blood. The only way that I would her proceed on doing her experiments
would be that she has to have someone there that could be there to watch to see
what she is doing. Someone would have to be there to supervise her on everything
that she does, and everyday I would have to get a progress report on the projects.
I also would need to have a agenda that would be followed very strict.
O.S
2/26/04
As the head of the IRB i belive that they should let her do he research because
she is the most qualified person for the job.i would also let another scientist
be there with her that would knows just as much about the artificial blood product
supervise just to make sure that she is honest one what she is doing.And for no
problems to happend. i believe that this would save peoples lifes in the future.
t.a
academy
2/26/04
As the head of the IRB i would allow the scientist to proceed with the research
on human subjects. But scientist would have to agree to allow the board to select
a qualified scientist to accompany her in her research.there should also be a
supervisor to watch over the scientist to make sure everything is runs ethically.
If they say that the scientist is the one that has better knowlage in doing this
then i believe that this aritficial blood would be beneficial to people in the
future.
academy of irving isd
2/26/04
I as head of IRB would allow her to run her experiment under some conditions.
As an IRB committee we would appoint people through out the company who would
assist her in her project. There would also be a book kept by me and two other
colleagues over work they have submitted and conducted. I would also appoint a
person who would be with the group as an overseer of the entire project. They
would not be able to work unless he was there to supervise.
I think her idea sounds wonderful, but has potential for being turned into something
less then beneficiary for humankind. The artificial blood could save hundreds
of thousands of lives, it is essential that this be conducted so we know as if
to go further with it or not.
Z.G.
The Academy of Irving ISD
2/25/04
I would not let her work on the project directly. I would keep her up to date
on all developments and tell researchers to talk to her for any information they
needed. My reasoning for this is I don’t believe that she could provide
an unbiased opinion due to her financial involvement.
LHFC
2/25/04
I would first try to find an unbiased scientist not affiliated with the company
to carry out the research. If I could not find someone qualified enough to complete
the research, I woudl then allow this scientist to carry out the researhc herself.
However, there would be very strict regulations taht come with performing this
experiment. She would have to have a non-affliated scientist to oversee the experiment.
If at any time he/she found the experiment to be made to favor results that the
company wanted, all results would be considered null and void and the experiment
would no longer continue.
M.R.
Summit High School
2/25/04
She should be allowed to do her research which in subject to review by outside
observers who do not have a conflict of interest.
DWC
Bishop Lynch HS
2/25/04
As head of the IRB, I would allow the scientist to carry out the research experiment,
but under strict regulations. There is a possibility that the financial risks
of her company may hinder her ability to carry out the research honestly; therefore,
I would not allow her to be the head of the research program. I would hire a committee
of people that have no affiliation with her and her company. The scientist would
be a part of the committee, but every decision made would be a unanimous vote
between the group. This would incorporate a balance, which will not allow the
scientist sole oversight of the research experiment. If the experiment indeed
adds to the advancing knowledge of medical science by being effective in the human
test subjects, the scientist will have to negotiate her business plans with the
IRB and the selected research committee members. I would make the scientist give
the medical center a small percentage of the proceeds for allowing her to conduct
the research in our facility. If the scientist is truly performing this research
to save lives, these conditions will not deter her from experimenting with the
artificial blood on humans. She would have to agree to these stipulations and
sign a contract in order to have IRB approval.
S.E.
Summit High School
2/25/04
On her own, I wouldn't advise her to go with the experiment because there are
too many risks involved. As the head of IRB, I wouldn't want that kind of responsibility
on my hands. Since she volunteered for the experiment, i would reccomend for other
IRB workers, besides myself, to be present during the proceedings. This way, there
will be someone who knows what to do in case of emgencies and a witness to any
complications. As far as the experiment itself is concerned, I wouldn't mind going
through with it if someone volunteered to be the guines pig because the chances
of the expoeriment working sounds good.
S.V.
2/25/04
As head of the IRB, I would allow her to perform the procedure. Since this experiment
is so complicated, I would require her to have help. In which, Iwould be there
to make sure that everything is done in the correct manner. She would have to
be open to changes. Financially, it is her choice in whether this be done or not.
This experiment could save many lives, so therefore she would have my support
regardless of many other peoples views.
B.K.
Mansfield-Summit High School
2/25/04
AS IRB boar, I will allow to the scientist to carry on the research. To let her
experience, because nothing has been discover without try it on first. This is
the way science and health had develop lots of medication by testing their hypotesis
and they have succed. I dont see why this new Artificial blood should not be test.
F.O
The Academy Of Irving
2/25/04
I would allow her to carry hot this research since in essence; this research would
be helping mankind if it goes through. The financial aspect of this issue does
cause a dishonesty factor, but shouldn't be an issue. Since it is, the scientist
should be able to head the research, but must display to the IRB a presentation
that this treatment really works. If the IRB agrees after the presentation then
the plan should completely go through. The better of mankind is more important
than the financial issues of one person, especially if it benefits many people.
R.P
The Academy of Irving ISD
2/25/04
I think that she should carry out the job because she obviously knows more about
the artificial blood product. However, to ensure that her job is done honestly
as head of the board I would place a couple of scientists to monitor her work,
and learn more about the product, and if it will be effective.This will also be
less criticism for her because she won't be the only one overseeing this job.
I also think that there is no problem in her financial success if the product
does work, as long as the scientists also benefit. Before she starts the experiment,
the scientists should be able to also test the product, so that we are more sure
that the product will be safe on humans.
SM
Academy of Irving ISD High School
2/25/04
As we all know, during major injury within the emergency room, many patient die
because they loose too much blood; from wounds or dramatic trauma. In any case,
when we are given an opportunity to reduce such an obstacle, we should take the
benefit to account. The doctor who is head of this research must understand that
even if she was to carry out this research in way that isn’t completely
honest, the key issues is if this will work and the chance that it will work.
When we look at the benefit in the issue, that knowledge that will come from it,
will only promote better health care and understanding in the science of blood.
In any understanding, if she is able to jump over the IRM hoops and by pass their
scrutiny, the FDA and other governmental base organization will future test her
product before them but it to market. Beside, her company must be working efficiently
and has such a trustful base for them to have that much money to spend. So what
I would do is say yes, but continue to keep and eye on her.
A.L.
Academy of IISD
2/25/04
I think that the scientist should go on and conduct her experiment. That is the
only way we learn things, it is if we test it. There should be someone who is
watching them, aiding them, if they need help. You can’t just do something
this big by your self. It would be good for both the scientist and the person
helping her; she will be a little relieved. If she has some help then if she does
succeed she will have witnesses, which will only help her in the long run.
AS
Academy IISD
2/25/04
As the head of the IRB I would not allow her to conduct the research by herself.
It is an important investigation and certainly it will advance our knowledge and
ability to save more lives but there are a lot of interests involved in this situation.
If her priority is to contribute to humanity by discovering a new type of artificial
blood then she must agree to the conditions that the IRB establishes in order
to successfully investigate this kind of blood. We must gather qualified scientists
and form a committee. This board including the scientist with the artificial blood
proposal will collaborate and test the blood in humans. A qualified member of
the IRB must be present at all times and his/her responsibility will be to report
any irregularity to us. This will ensure accuracy and prevent any interference.
A.N.
Summit High School
2/24/04
As the head of the ISB board, I would allow the scientist to proceed with the
research on human subjects but with mandatory stipulations. The scientist would
have to agree to allow the board to select a qualified scientist to accompany
her in her research. If the scientist proceeds with the research alone, the data
collected could be easily strayed in favor of the scientist's company. The scientist
accompanying the researcher would have to have no affiliation with the blood company
or the scientist who owns the blood company. The two scientists will be supervised
during all interaction to prevent bribing. Because this breakthrough has the possibility
of being so beneficial for so many people, the research on humans is worth the
risk.
A.H
SHS
2/23/04
If this particular scientist is the most qualified to carry out the research,
she should be able to. Her findings could be questionable, due to her financial
involvement, however. This scientist could be subject to a "checks and balances"
type system to help resolve this issue. She could work along side an unbiased
group of researchers that would honestly carry out the research. Ultimately, the
most knowledgable person on the subject needs to be involved.
L.H.
Summit High School
2/19/04
My team and I believe that this research should be carried out do to all the advantages
it would have in the world today. However, we believe that there should
be a supervisor to watch over the scientist to make sure everything is ran ethically.
With the shortage of blood and people that have rare blood types this new technology
of artificial blood would make certain aspects of the medical field a lot easier.
We also believe that financial cost should be watched very closely.
T.O.
Tri Star Med Prep, St. Marys, Ohio
2/19/04
We say yes and let her carry the whole thing out. Have a second party that doesn't
work for her oversee the research just for precaution. In the future it would
help with blood shortages and help with passing on less diseases and sicknesses.
If it works right, ll the research will be worth it. If they don't, they
won't know that maybe on day artificial blood could help. If she carries
out the research, then she could take the least amount of people and test them.
Watch their health and chart their improvements. They say she can carry
out this whole thing because she knows what she is doing, so it could be beneficial
to the future. Also if it can work on animals, it should work on humans
because they both have about the same internal organs. So with what we included
in this, the research will be helpful.
J.R.
Tri Star Med Prep, St. Marys Ohio
2/9/04
I would let her carry out the research mostly because she is the most qualified
person for the job. I would have another person who knows almost just as much
as her about the artificial blood product supervise her to make sure she is honest
on her research results.I would not let an unqualified person carry out the research
on humans especially with peoples lives at risk. Before I would let her try the
product on humans I would first let the supervisor try out the product on the
animals to make sure it really does work. I would also have a background check
done on the scientist to ensure she had not had any business scams ect. in the
past. This product if successful would not only be beneficial to her but to everyone.
M.O.
Frisco High School
2/6/04
As the most qualified scientist for the research, she should be allowed to perform
her experiments with artificial blood, as this research has the potential to further
human knowledge and the study of medicine. Since her financial link to the artificial
blood company causes her honesty to come under question, however, the IRB could
opt to ask her to work alongside a team of scientists, who do not own stock in
her company and could contribute to the experiment, as well. If it is not possible
for this scientist to work with a team, a separate group of scientists could perform
the same experiment and the IRB could compare their respective data to negate
the possibility of sabotage. Alternately, she could be intermittently subjected
to examinations by a representative of the IRB, who would take note of her progress
and make sure that the integrity of the experiment is maintained.
Frisco High School
2/5/04
If this scientist wants to run this experiment, she should be able to. Just
because she is a direct contact with the artificial blood company, does not
mean that she should not be able to run tests herself and make money off of
the hopeful positive results. There is not a high demand of blood transfusions
for animals at the moment so the only possible way for her to make a decent
profit is to prove that this blood is useable on people. There is no way that
she could be dishonest without eventually getting sued. Today in this world,
people are sued for the stupidest things, so she most likely would not be stupid
and do something illegal. Also, it's unethical to let technology this great
just pass by without letting someone try to see if it works.
O.B.
Frisco High School
Page maintained by Program
in Ethics in Science and Medicine
Last Update: July 19, 2004
