This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Black, J.
Right arrow Articles by Cowell, H. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Black, J.
Right arrow Articles by Cowell, H. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 79:1751-2 (1997)
© 1997 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

Correspondence

Correspondence

Jonathan Black, Ph.D., Thomas A. Einhorn, M.D., Albert H. Burstein, Ph.D. and Henry R. Cowell, M.D., Ph.D.

TO THE EDITOR:

There can be no question about the universality of fundamental human rights with regard to the conduct of human clinical research. In "Editorial. Human Experimentation" (79-A: 959–960, July 1997), Einhorn et al. presented the recent policy decision not to publish the results of any clinical study in which the reviewers and editors believe that "standards of human experimentation" may have been violated; I believe that this is unwise on three ethical grounds.

1. Such a unilateral decision, even after clarifying exchanges between the editors and authors, lacks the appearance, if not the substance, of equitable due process since the decision of the Editor in Chief is always final. I suggest that such a decision unintentionally and unnecessarily impugns the professional conduct of the authors as well as that of the Institutional Review Board that, in most cases, prospectively reviewed and approved the study protocol.

2. Furthermore, the . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?