The ethics committees that oversee research done in humans have been attacked from all sides. Heidi Ledford recounts the struggle to come up with alternatives.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Burman, W. et al. Control. Clin. Trials 24, 245–255 (2003).
Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services. Institutional review boards: a time for reform. (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1998).
Greene, S. M. & Geiger, A. M. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 59, 784–790 (2006).
Keith-Spiegel, P. & Koocher, G. P. Ethics Behav. 15, 339–349 (2005).
Sugarman, J. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 352, 1825–1827 (2005).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Related links
Related links
Related links in Nature Research
Pharma firms told to end secrecy in drug trials
Bioethics: Dial ‘E’ for ethics
Researchers break the rules in frustration at review boards
Journals lack explicit policies for separating eds from ads
Related external links
US Office for Human Research Protections
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ledford, H. Trial and error. Nature 448, 530–532 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/448530a
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/448530a
This article is cited by
-
Researchers' ethical duties are not to be outsourced
Nature (2007)
-
Ethics reviews can be centralized without delays
Nature (2007)
