Experimental radiobiology represented a long-standing priority for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), but organizational issues initially impeded the laboratory progress of this government-funded work: who would direct such interdisciplinary investigations and how? And should the AEC support basic research or only mission-oriented projects? Alexander Hollaender's vision for biology in the post-war world guided AEC initiatives at Oak Ridge, where he created and presided over the Division of Biology for nearly two decades (1947-1966). Hollaender's scheme, at once entrepreneurial and system-oriented, (...) made good use of the unique resources provided by the AEC and by Oak Ridge's national laboratory setting, while at the same time it restructured wartime research practices to better reflect biologists' own priorities. Because Hollaender offered many academic experimental biologists a way of envisioning military-related patronage as integral - rather than antithetical - to their professional identities, his work provides an important lens through which to examine the early post-war intellectual and institutional development of radiobiology. (shrink)

The report from the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues is clear that the public health services research conducted in Guatemala mid‐century was wrong, but its focus on individual responsibilities is inadequate for the structural and institutional factors at the root of that research. Ethically Impossible”: STD Research in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948, released in September 2011 by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 1 responds to President Obama's request for a “thorough (...) fact‐finding investigation” into research carried out by the U.S. Public Health Service in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948. “Ethically Impossible” offers a detailed narrative of what happened in Guatemala and a self‐described “unvarnished ethical analysis.” I argue, however, that being “ever vigilant” to prevent exploitation, as well as learning as a society from this past and honoring the memory of Guatemalan victims, requires a more complex ethical analysis than the commission offers in this report. Specifically, we need to identify the structural injustices that innervated the social relations and the institutions fundamental to the moral landscape of this 1940s research, and we need to expand our understandings of moral responsibility accordingly. The report posits three “longstanding and widely accepted moral principles” as the framework for evaluating this research: (1) to treat persons fairly and with respect, (2) not to harm (or risk harming) persons unless the risk is reasonable and the benefit proportional, and (3) not to treat persons as means to others’ ends. As critically important as the three principles are to research ethics writ large, they alone are unfitting tools for addressing the kind of structural and institutional moral factors that are so important in these PHS studies. (shrink)

In what is clearly an important development related to research integrity and the protection of human research subjects, the U.S. government has instituted two new training requirements as a condition of receiving federal financial support. First, the National Institutes of Health is requiring, as a condition of funding, that key research personnel involved in human subject research complete education “in the protection of human subjects.” Evidence that key personnel have completed this training must be provided in NIH grant applications (...) or contract proposals.The NIH education policy will eventually be superseded by a more broadly applicable instructional policy for the “responsible conduct of research,” which will be promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Research Integrity and the Public Health Service. The instructional policy will apply to all persons engaged in any research or research training with PHS support. Presently, the only version of the policy is in draft form. (shrink)