1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 20th June 2022 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Scientists Hate the NIH's New Rules for Experimenting on Humans

Discussion in 'ME/CFS research' started by TrixieStix, Jan 29, 2018.

Tags:
  1. TrixieStix

    TrixieStix Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    242
    https://www.wired.com/story/scienti...nting-on-humans/amp?__twitter_impression=true


    "This week, after almost a decade of work, some new rules go into effect for researchers funded by NIH. If they’re using human beings in their experiments, most of them now have to register their methodologies on a government-built website, clinicaltrials.gov.

    They have to promise to share whatever they find, even if they don’t prove what they hoped—especially if they don’t prove it. They have to get trained up in modern clinical practices."
     
    TrixieStix, Jan 29, 2018
    #1
    Allele, MErmaid, Webdog and 16 others like this.
  2. hixxy

    hixxy Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    119
    Oh how they need this in the UK.
     
    hixxy, Jan 29, 2018
    #2
    Jan, Wonko, Louie41 and 5 others like this.
  3. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    40,810
    Location:
    UK
    It looks like an excellent plan to require preregistration of all clinical trials including approved protocols for outcome measures and shared data. And all trials funded having to lodge their outcome data, even if they don't get published.

    But it seems to have hit a snag with defining what is a clinical trial, and ending up including basic science as well. I'm not clear whether they have sorted out the distinction between basic science and clinical trial to the satisfaction of the scientists.

    It seems to me that everyone who gets government funding for medical research in any country should have to publish their protocol, stick to it, and publish their data, whether it's a clinical trial or basic science. I'd extend that to pharmaceutical company, charity or privately funded research too.
     
    Trish, Jan 29, 2018
    #3
    Jan, Webdog, Samuel and 8 others like this.
  4. Sisyphus

    Sisyphus Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    448
    Do scientists really hate that question of scientists should be pleased to come to any firm conclusion whether something is approved or disapproved. Either way it adds the scientific knowledge and that’s a success. Success in science doesn’t mean something happy :) and candy coated, it means weblearn something about nature, and Nature is usually cruel.
     
    Sisyphus, Jan 29, 2018
    #4
    Luther Blissett, Jan, Wonko and 1 other person like this.
  5. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,309
    Good idea, but its all in the execution. Just because scientists don't like it doesn't mean its bad, but if it is red tape and inconsistent criteria then they need to fix that.
    Though I'm most impressed they made this kind of procedural improvement without there being a tragedy involved
     
    Alvin, Jan 30, 2018
    #5
    Luther Blissett, hixxy and Wonko like this.
  6. MErmaid

    MErmaid Guest

    Messages:
    1,419
    Location:
    Under the Sea
    MErmaid, Jan 30, 2018
    #6
    Luther Blissett likes this.

Share This Page