You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 164 No. 6, March 22, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Commentary
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (15)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letter
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Medical Ethics
 •Patient-Physician Communication
 •Randomized Controlled Trial
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Deception in the Pursuit of Science

Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:597-600.

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

INTRODUCTION

The pursuit of scientific knowledge sometimes requires clinical investigators to deceive their subjects. Deception is necessary when accurately informing subjects could bias their responses, thereby impairing the validity of the data. Although deception is associated most commonly with psychological research, it occurs in clinical research as well.

In a study of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, investigators attached a chronolog to subjects' inhalers to measure whether they were "dumping" study medications.1 To ensure accurate measurements, subjects "were not informed of the chronolog's date- and time-recording capabilities." In a study of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs placebo in sleep apnea, subjects were told that the inert pill placebo was "intended to improve airway function."2 The investigators used a misdescribed pill placebo as the control out of concern that subjects who were familiar with CPAP would have been able to distinguish real CPAP from sham CPAP.

Investigators, institutional review boards (IRBs), and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

THE HARMS OF DECEPTION

THEORETICAL HARMS OF DECEPTIVE CLINICAL RESEARCH

THE PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORIZED DECEPTION

POTENTIAL OBJECTIONS TO AUTHORIZED DECEPTION

CONCLUSIONS

David Wendler, PhD
Department of Clinical Bioethics
National Institutes of Health
Bldg 10, Room 1C118
Bethesda, MD 20892
(e-mail: dwendler@nih.gov)

Franklin G. Miller, PhD
Bethesda,


RELATED LETTER

Looking for Ways to Avoid Deception in the Pursuit of Science
Maria I. Hechem and Sergio Gonorazky
Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(10):1199-1200.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Deception of Subjects in Neuroscience: An Ethical Analysis
Miller and Kaptchuk
J. Neurosci. 2008;28:4841-4843.
FULL TEXT  

Misunderstanding About Communication
Wissow and Erby
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008;162:280-281.
FULL TEXT  

Acupuncture trials and informed consent
Miller and Kaptchuk
J. Med. Ethics 2007;33:43-44.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism
Kwok
J. Med. Ethics 2005;31:554-556.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Direct-to-Consumer Advertising and Physician Prescribing
Miller and Wendler
JAMA 2005;294:678-678.
FULL TEXT  

Direct-to-Consumer Advertising and Physician Prescribing--Reply
Kravitz et al.
JAMA 2005;294:678-679.
FULL TEXT  

PLACEBO RESEARCH AND THE SPIRIT OF INFORMED CONSENT * RESPONSE
Miller et al.
Psychosom. Med. 2005;67:678-678.
FULL TEXT  

Looking for Ways to Avoid Deception in the Pursuit of Science
Hechem and Gonorazky
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1199-1200.
FULL TEXT  

Sham procedures and the ethics of clinical trials
Miller and Kaptchuk
JRSM 2004;97:576-578.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2004 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.