Bias toward allopathic medicine in the research funding and publication of study results makes it difficult for physicians and others to find accurate data about the efficacy of non-Western, nonallopathic treatments.
Institutional review boards (IRBs) have the responsibility to ensure the protection of human-research subjects and are legally liable if they fail to do so.
Specific contributions to a scientific article entitle the contributor to be included as an author; requests for authorship by those who have not made those specific contributions are unethical.
The bias for publishing positive clinical-research results can cause physicians to question journal articles as dependable sources of product information.
Amy Fairchild, PhD, MPH, Ronald Bayer, PhD, and James Colgrove, PhD, MPH
A brief history of public opposition to disease surveillance in the U.S., despite the documented success of this tool in recognizing and managing threats to public health.
Clinical trials for the blood substitute PolyHeme exposed the possibility for ambiguous interpretation of the FDA’s waiver of informed consent for emergency research.