This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;54(2):117-120.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

WHY reconsider how we conduct psychiatric research, as Bonnie¹ and Elliott² urge in this issue of the ARCHIVES? To be sure, several highly publicized cases have raised questions regarding the adequacy of current regulatory structures for the protection of subjects (New York Times. March 10, 1994:A-1 and March 4, 1995:21; Chronicle of Higher Education. March 31, 1995: A27). Adverse media coverage, however, even when it stimulates congressional hearings (New York Times. May 24, 1994:A-13), is not necessarily a sound basis on which to reopen complex issues of policy. In this case, though, there are at least 2 reasons to encourage further systematic attention to the conduct of psychiatric research.

First, doubts about whether protections are adequate to safeguard the interests of research subjects with mental illness threaten to split the alliance of family members and psychiatric researchers, a union that has become crucial for sustaining political support for . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Department of Psychiatry University of Massachusetts Medical Center 55 Lake Ave N Worcester, MA 01655

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?