Testing toxins on humans

[xwhirledx]

This story will run in our paper tomorrow. Excerpts below:

An advisory panel yesterday endorsed limited testing of pesticides and pollutants on volunteers but said the Environmental Protection Agency should accept such studies only when they meet strict scientific and ethical guidelines.
The recommendations of the National Academies panel of scientists, ethicists and public policy experts drew immediate criticism from opponents. Some said anything less than a ban of such tests would open the door to the abuse of research volunteers and weaken public health protections.
"This unhinges the safeguards that were mandated under the Nuremberg Code," said Vera Hassner Sharav, director of the Alliance for Human Research Protection. She referred to guidelines outlined by a World War II military tribunal in the wake of horrific Nazi medical experiments.
"This is a cynical accommodation to ... powerful industry," she said.
EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said the agency was still reviewing the report from the National Academies panel and had no response.
CropLife America, a pesticide industry trade group, welcomed the report, saying it agrees with the major finding that human testing is ethical, provided there are safeguards and sound science is used.


Thoughts on this? I'm not completely decided, but right now I feel as long as companies disclose exactly what these toxins are supposed to do and what possible effects there might be (no matter how little risk), if people volunteer to do this, then it is their choice. I'm sure companies will be offering some type of compensation....

[Fiona]

An advisory panel yesterday endorsed limited testing of pesticides and pollutants on volunteers but said the Environmental Protection Agency should accept such studies only when they meet strict scientific and ethical guidelines. Like perhaps being sterile? just something to think about. I don't think a human should have the right to poison their future child... Genetics in Psychology (BioPsych) is my specific field, although you probably thought i was a bookkeeper or a nurse, (i'm versatile! ;) ) I have been/am being trained specifically in the field that studies how our environment affects our genetic makeup and passes on to our descendants... possibly increasing their predisposition to certain diseases, dysfunctions, birth defects, etc.

:boo:

[xwhirledx]

I would hope no pregnant woman would think have anything tested on them. I would think if something were to be tested, the company would say what that chemical is and what it is supposed to do: i.e. block certain receptors on insects or something like that. I think what's scary with pesticides is that they can target nerves.

Of course, I wonder who tested toothpaste. A lot of today's toothpastes have a chemical in them that is the same as the chemical used in rat poison, which is why they tell you not to swallow it and be careful with it when used with young children. I bet toothpaste made for kiddies is safer...

[Fiona]

I didn't mean pregnant... :) more future than that :)

[Neo]

All substances are toxic to humans at a sufficient dose--including water. Something to consider.

In a related subject there are way too many generalizations regarding the effects of something on people based upon an animals reaction to it.

[Fiona]

In a related subject there are way too many generalizations regarding the effects of something on people based upon an animals reaction to it.This is also true.

[Sierra Mike]

I can perceive some value derived from this, but it also makes me uneasy. I guess if someone volunteers and is compensated for it--and if the hiring organization also takes care of any unanticipated side effects--then technically, I have no problem with it. But I do sense a potential for abuse, and holding corporations and the like liable for damages arising from cases like this could prove difficult.

SM

[ditch]

[QUOTE
Thoughts on this? I'm not completely decided, but right now I feel as long as companies disclose exactly what these toxins are supposed to do and what possible effects there might be (no matter how little risk), if people volunteer to do this, then it is their choice. I'm sure companies will be offering some type of compensation....[/QUOTE]

This is the danger, the chemical companies don't know what these toxins are supposed to do. Isn't this why they need to do tests in the first place? The dangers are not known.

[mikepd]

How can they know in advance what all the dangers will be from chemicals interacting with other chemicals already in the body? When a given chemical breaks down, interacts with something else and its properties change?

How many chemicals are there in existence that have not even been tested yet?

There are so many questions and correspondingly so few answers that how is anything like an informed consent possible?

[ShinyTop]

Doesn't every product require human testing at some point? At least every product that will beingested, worn, be around or touching humans?

[Advocat]

Doesn't every product require human testing at some point? At least every product that will beingested, worn, be around or touching humans?

Shiney, I think the problem comes from the fact they aren't going to test "products" like perfumes or clothing, but poisons/pesticides and pollutants. Up to now, known toxins were only tested on animals. The problem here is that desperate people will do terrible things for money. Will the companies in question take noble volunteers who are laying their health on the line or will companies start recruiting among the destitute or homeless, promising compensation and health care in case of illness?

[ShinyTop]

I think pesticides would fall into the category of touching or being near humans. How do you propose testing for their affect on humans? Not taking a side, yet, but a little at a loss for what method to be used if we don't use humans. If we are to use humans it seems correct that they be compensated and treated when required.

[Advocat]

I think pesticides would fall into the category of touching or being near humans. How do you propose testing for their affect on humans? Not taking a side, yet, but a little at a loss for what method to be used if we don't use humans. If we are to use humans it seems correct that they be compensated and treated when required.

The same way it's been done for the last 50 years... rhesus monkeys and specially bred animals. First, lets note that these studies aren't being done for the CDC or FDC, but for the Environmental Protection Agency. The FDC requires extensive testing on animals, with results showing little chance of toxicity, before human testing is allowed, yet this panel's recommendation would allow <b>known/suspected</b> toxins -- whose effects are not completely known -- to be tested. While the panel may make this recommendation, I think the CDC and FDC will have a lot to say about the concept.

I personally agree with the comment in the original piece "This is a cynical accommodation to ... powerful industry" A number of questions arise: It is ethical to allow companies to test poisons (as opposed to drugs to improve health) on humans for a profit motive? Who will overwatch the companies to make sure "there are safeguards and sound science is used"? Where/how should these companies be allowed to recruit volunteers? What kinds of compensation/treatment for volunteers should be mandated?

[jfcjrus]

There are so many questions and correspondingly so few answers that how is anything like an informed consent possible?
That's also what I wonder, sir.

Years ago we were told by the <i>experts</i> that this is good and that is bad.
Today we are told by the <i>experts</i> that this is bad and that is good.
Thus is the nature of learned science and what we like to think of as knowledge.
In other words, the <i>experts</i> are quite often full of shit.

So, I guess as long as the volunteer human subjects realize this history of <i>science</i>, I have no issue with them volunteering for such tests, although I, personally, am saddened that they hold their lives in such low regard.

But, to each his own.
Regards,

[ShinyTop]

Couple this request with the reported administration ouster of scientists who disagree with them and it becomes a little scary.

[Coot]

The grandfather of Polly Klaas (http://www.pollyklaas.org/index.htm) is pushing for a one strike law for convicted child molesters. Seems pretty reasonable to do all kinds of testing on those cretins.

[Fiona]

I think pesticides would fall into the category of touching or being near humans. How do you propose testing for their affect on humans? Not taking a side, yet, but a little at a loss for what method to be used if we don't use humans. If we are to use humans it seems correct that they be compensated and treated when required.I agree with this concern. At some point they have to test on humans. These are NEW pesticides I'm assuming? and not the ones we've already been poisoned with? (a little biased huh? :P )

[Fiona]

So, I guess as long as the volunteer human subjects realize this history of science, I have no issue with them volunteering for such tests, and what of their future children? are they unwilling participants of the study as well? If you don't think pesticides and such contribute to the eventual makeup of our descendants... (increases yearly in such genetic malfunctions as down's syndrome, ADHD, BiPolar disorder , etc. ) - I'd like to do my homework and show you evidence to the contrary.

[Fiona]

The grandfather of Polly Klaas (http://www.pollyklaas.org/index.htm) is pushing for a one strike law for convicted child molesters. Seems pretty reasonable to do all kinds of testing on those cretins.ahhhh convicted lifers... hmmmm without possibility of parole... hmmm.... I see a little light... maybe death row inmates... it takes years before they actually get to the chair/ needle/chamber.