This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Ethics  • Occupational and Environmental Medicine  • Public Health, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic

Of Mice and Men Divided by Ten

Sheldon Krimsky, PhD; Tania Simoncelli, MS

JAMA. 2007;297:2405-2407.

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

Imagine that a relative or a friend asked your opinion about accepting $1000 to participate as a human subject in an experimental trial in which he would be required to consume a pesticide. Were you aware that such experiments were permissible? What advice would you give?

Breaking with a long tradition in the ethics of human experimentation that distinguished therapeutic from nontherapeutic agents, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in February 2006 on ethical guidelines for enrolling human participants in testing pesticides.¹ Data from such experiments are used to reduce the economic costs in the statutory obligation for companies to protect the food supply from dangerous levels of pesticide residues. The policy gives regulatory standing to experiments that intentionally expose adults to toxic pesticides and could set a precedent for similar experiments involving other industrial chemicals. In addition, the policy opens . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Genesis of the EPA Policy on Human Subjects

Author Affiliations: Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health, Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY (Dr Krimsky); Technology and Liberty Program, American Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY (Ms Simoncelli).