October 1, 2001
Text of AHRP Amicus Brief filed with the Maryland Court of Appeals in support of the Court’s ruling against Kennedy Krieger Institute for exposing children to lead poison in an experiment. The Court of Appeals Decision Validates AHRP’s Stand Against Using Children in Harmful Research Experiments.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
September Term, 2000
ERICKA GRIMES, Appellant
KENNEDY KRIEGER INSTITUTE, INC., Appellee.
September Term, 2000
MYRON HIGGINS, a Minor, etc., et.al., Appellants
KENNEDY KRIEGER INSTITUTE, INC., Appellee.
MOTION OF AMICUS CURIAE FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF
IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP)
142 West End Ave, Suite 28P
New York, NY 10023
October 1, 2001
Howard Fishman, AHRP Steering Committee Member
Vera Hassner Sharav, AHRP President
This honorable Court’s enlightened and responsible decision in the matter of Ericka Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. and Myron Higgins, A Minor, Etc., et. al. v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. is, above all, a clarion call for restoration of common sense, ethical sensitivity and professional integrity to the medical research enterprise. We applaud the Court’s discerning decision and respectfully submit this brief in the hope that safeguards to protect the health and well-being of medical research subjects – whether adults or children – will be clarified, fortified, and implemented.
This Court’s decision will have a profound impact on the medical research enterprise by restoring humane and ethical standards to the conduct of medical research, demonstrating respect for the subjects of research, and providing safeguards for the most vulnerable. We fervently hope that this court’s clearly articulated, sound and incisive decision will ensure that ethical standards will be implemented rather than circumvented. We also hope that this morally reassuring decision will serve to re-instill public trust in this critically important arena. Research is necessary and valued; it must be conducted in accordance with those ethical principles that distinguish this nation.
The Court is to be applauded for challenging the deficiencies in the medical research approval and oversight process. Whereas the research establishment and its stakeholders would have us believe that the rights of individual human subjects are well protected by Institutional Review Boards (IRB), this Court has rightfully recognized that IRBs are “primarily, in-house organs” which are neither designed to be objective nor are they “sufficiently concerned with the ethicality of the experiments they review as they are with the success of the experiments.” The Court astutely observed that “failure in the informed consent process leads to serious inequities in research, specifically for the poor and less educated who bear most of the research burden [and that] the problem is perpetuated in pediatrics, where parents who volunteer their children were found to be significantly less educated and under represented in the professional and managerial occupations compared to their non-volunteering counterparts.”
Most importantly, this Court has courageously challenged the assignment of unlimited authority to those who profit from the research enterprise by noting that “the scientific and medical communities cannot be permitted to assume sole authority to determine ultimately what is right and appropriate in respect to research projects involving young children.”
We pray for the Court’s indulgence in reference to any legal deficiencies in form or content that may be noted in this brief. We are not attorneys or legal scholars, but we wish to provide the court with additional evidence that may prove helpful in judicial deliberations. Please also note that while we make reference to various documents throughout this document, rather than burdening the Court with excessive paperwork, we have proffered citations. Upon request, we would be pleased to provide copies of the cited documents.
Overarching Legal Protections Regarding the Parent-Child Relationship
The Supreme Court of the United States was unanimously of the view that “the interest of parents in their relationship with their children is sufficiently fundamental to come within the finite class of liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment,” Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S., at 774 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). It also held that the right to rear and protect one’s child is “an interest more precious than any property right,” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S., at 745, 758-759.
Children are increasingly being targeted for experiments, including those at the heart of the instant case, that are not in their best interests and which are as likely to harm them as to provide any benefit. We recognize that to include children in clinical trials presents a dilemma of truly Solomonic proportions. While certain types of medical research promise meaningful benefits, children are among those at highest risk of harm and exploitation if adequate safeguards are absent. Children cannot exercise their right to “voluntary, informed, comprehending and competent consent” to medical experimentation required under the Nuremberg Code,  nor can they protect themselves from risks in unwanted, painful biomedical experiments that are contrary to their best medical interests.
Two Signal Examples
“Cerebrospinal fluid homovanillic acid predicts behavioral response to stimulants in 45 boys with ADHD,” is an experiment conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) on six-year-old children who were loosely diagnosed with “conduct oppositional disorder.” The children were subjected to painful lumbar punctures, without medical justification, but simply to test a questionable hypothesis. 
Preschool ADHD Treatment Study (PATS) is a controversial, federally sponsored drug experiment [3, 4, 5] conducted at multiple sites (including, coincidentally, Johns Hopkins University). Even Dr. Lawrence Greenhill, the principal investigator, acknowledges that ADHD is “not a well-defined psychiatric disorder in this age group.”  Yet, children as young as three years old are being recruited to test a psychotropic drug whose safety and long-term consequences for young children is unknown. Parents are offer
ed financial incentives  – $645 (beyond travel expenses) – if their child completes the protocol. [The case is discussed elsewhere in this brief.]
Federal policy adopted in 1983  has protected children from non-essential, invasive, painful medical experiments that are not in their personal best interests by restricting their inclusion in experiments that involve: “greater than minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit to individual subjects.” [45 CFR 46.406] Until now, FDA acknowledges on its website, phase I studies which test for the first time the safety of new drugs in humans, were mostly conducted on healthy, normal, adult volunteers, or on patients with life-threatening conditions. In the past, phase I studies in children “had been primarily limited to life threatening diseases and children who had the disease for which the new drug was being proposed.” [ http://www.fda.gov/cder/pediatric/pedethics-1199.htm ]
That posture has changed. On April 19, 2000, the FDA adopted a policy broadening the regulatory definition of “potential benefit” to include virtually all healthy children “who are not patients in pediatric pharmaceutical research.” According to these new FDA guidelines, “any child has the potential to benefit from a treatment for otitis media” (i.e., ear infection); therefore, every child is available for recruitment into drug trials.
[ http://www.fda.gov/cder/pediatric/ethics-statement.htm ] This policy, the FDA acknowledges, “has led to an increasing number of proposals for studies of safety and pharmacokenetics, including those in children who do not have the condition for which the drug is intended.” http://www.fda.gov/cder/pediatric/pedethics-1199.htm
It is noteworthy – and certainly not coincidental – that the shift in policy followed upon passage of 1997 federal law extending patent rights to pharmaceutical companies  that test their drugs on children in controlled clinical trials. Neither appellees, nor their member research institutions, nor Federal oversight agencies (FDA, National Institute of Health (NIH), Office of Research Protections (OHRP, formerly OPRR)) informed Congress that existing regulatory protections for children were wholly inadequate. Nor was Congress informed about systemic ethical violations  and evidence of preventable, research related adverse (sometimes fatal) consequences. Since 1997, a continuing stream of scandals has been uncovered by the media, revealing how vulnerable individuals are harmed and exploited in the absence of effective federal oversight and enforcement mechanisms.
Ethical standards for including children in clinical research are explicated in international codes and declarations. Even more detailed consideration was given to this issue by the Advisory Commission on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE). In its Final Report  (1994), the Commission expressed concern about the 30- year record of abuse of children in unethical, harmful, federally sponsored experiments including some conducted with parental consent. ACHRE emphasized the need for specific protections for those who are not in a position to give autonomous, legally valid consent to research (children and the disabled). Their recommendations questioned the legitimacy of parental permission for non-therapeutic research involving risks of harm:
“Where the research does not offer any prospect of benefit to the child, however, the legitimacy of the parent as authorizer is less clearRespect for the authority of parents to make decisions for their children and otherwise control their children’s lives is not without bounds. The law recognizes several exceptions, designed primarily to protect the child from what society at large considers to be unacceptable or unjustifiable harm or risk of harmIn the context of research, the question arises of whether a parent has the authority to permit a child to be put at risk of harm in an experiment from which the child could not possibly benefit medically. In this case, the child is to be used as a means to the ends of others.” 
The Commission indicated clearly that such a use of children could not be rendered morally acceptable. We applaud the Maryland Court of Appeals for affirming in clear and straightforward language the fundamental distinction between “therapeutic” and “non-therapeutic” research, a distinction that has been sustained by the World Medical Association.  The distinction is recognized and understood by professionals and laymen alike. Appellees and their bio-ethicists, who are themselves beneficiaries of the medical research enterprise,  have been actively campaigning to eliminate that distinction by disingenuously claiming it is illogical.  Their real goal is to blur all indices of attendant risks that might limit the inclusion of children and incapable adults in non-therapeutic experiments.
The Court rightly recognized that “therapeutic” research is intended to benefit the individual research subject, and “non-therapeutic” research is not. The Court’s thoughtful evaluation of the instant case led it to conclude correctly that: “Nothing about the research was designed for treatment of the subject children.” This statement essentially and succinctly defines non-therapeutic research. The Court affirmed the obligation to protect children from being placed “unnecessarily in potentially hazardous non-therapeutic research surroundings” by either scientific researchers or even by their parents and the court correctly noted that “parental consent, no matter how informed, is insufficient.”
Appellee’s motion for reconsideration includes the following in footnote 3:
“It is not clear why parental consent under these or other circumstances is ineffective and not permitted. Consider the parent who is asked to consent to a study of a vaccine provided for children at risk for a serious communicable disease. Some of those children necessarily will be given a placebo, a “treatment” that places them at risk, or exposes them to elevated harm, by enhancing – or, at the least, failing to diminish – the risk that they will contract the disease. . . .”
In addition to arguments made elsewhere in this document, we would suggest that this scenario fails to distinguish between prevention of non-imminent disease and the imminent risk associated with knowingly placing a child in a contaminated environment that is likely to cause foreseeable and disabling harm. The Court’s holding in this regard is entirely correct because it proscribes the intentional exposure of healthy children to toxic agents that are known to cause neurological impairment.
We further note that “placebo” is appropriate only in the absence of an alternative treatment of proven efficacy.  In addition,
“placebo” controls and dosage titration research should only be undertaken after fundamental safety and efficacy have been established. Much of the risk associated with such endeavors should have already been eliminated through computer modeling and animal research.
Appellees also assert in footnote 3:
“Consider the implications outside of the area of health research. If parents cannot consent to non-therapeutic research that poses “any risk” to their children, how can they consent to the almost infinite spectrum of other activities that pose potential risks to their children?
Can parents still consent, for example, to their child’s obtaining an “early driver’s license,” . . . or engaging in the myriad of other inherently risky activities that are an accepted part of childhood?”
Appellees seem to suggest that the unnatural risks associated with participation in medical research are somehow to be viewed by the Court as analogous – if not identical – to everyday risks of life. It is as though they believe that such hazards should be visited upon every child as a matter of natural course. The particularized and optional nature of such risks, of course, underlie the necessity for and very existence of ethical codes.
Formulations such as these reinforce our concern that ethical safeguards for children are viewed simply as inconveniences that must be circumvented. Furthermore, informed consent is the cornerstone of ethical medical research. Parents are typically fully aware of the dangers associated with driving an automobile, engaging in athletics, and the like. However, as the findings of the federal Office of Human Research Protections demonstrate [http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/detrm_letrs/lindex.htm], the hazards associated with research protocols are far too often not clearly and openly disclosed. When adverse outcomes occur in routine life activities, they are accidents; when adverse outcomes occur in research, they are either preventable, or, as often is the case, built into the protocol and, thus, are inflicted (non-accidental) injuries.
We are encouraged by the Court’s unequivocal affirmation of the overriding concern for “the best interests of the child”:
“We have long stressed that the “best interests of the child” is the overriding concern of this Court in matters relating to children. Whatever the interests of a parent and whatever the interests of the general public in fostering research that might, according to a researcher’s hypothesis, be for the good of all children, this Court’s concern for the particular child and particular case over-arches all other interests. It is, simply, and we hope, succinctly put, not in the best interest of any healthy child to be intentionally put in a non-therapeutic situation where his or her health may be impaired, in order to test methods that may ultimately benefit all children.” [p.82]
The same moral sense guided Justice Edward Greenfield  when he struck down New York State’s mental health research regulations, stating:
“Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.” [T.D. v NYSOMH, 1995]
This Court recognized that conflicts of interest are deeply embedded in the biomedical research enterprise, and it recognized the serious inequities arising from an inherently unfair playing field “specifically for the poor and less educated who bear most of the research burden.” Appellees argue against the Court’s resolute ethical standard prohibiting the exposure of children to any unnecessary risks in non-therapeutic experiments. Appellees would wish to be the sole arbiters authorized to determine how levels of risk are to be interpreted. The Court, no doubt, is mindful of the fact that “minimal risk” has been invoked indiscriminately to facilitate even high risk research on children.
We offer the following examples:
Case 1: Institutional Review Board defines “minimal risk:”
As of October 2000, 100 obese children and 93 normal weight children, aged 6 to 10 years old, had been enrolled in an obesity experiment conducted at National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD).  [Attached, OHRP letter of findings.]
The experiment required a battery of painful tests and a two-day overnight hospital stay for intensive additional testing, including the insertion of several intravenous blood lines (one attached for 18 hours), MRI, a 2- hour hyperglycemic clamp (involves a second IV line), a 3 hour euglycemic clamp (involves two IV lines) and hyperinsulinemic clamp. The children were required to experience extremely high and extremely low blood sugar levels for hours at a time.
The experiment caused the children undue pain, put them at risk of allergic reactions, and most problematically, at risk of blood clots or phlebitis. The experiment offered these children absolutely no benefit.
IRB minutes  reveal that on March 27, 1996 the IRB approved the experiment as involving “greater than minimal risk.” However, the minutes of a subsequent meeting on April 24, 1996 reveal that the principal investigator, Dr. Jack Yanovski, persuaded the IRB to approve the experiment under the “minimal risk” category: “The committee agreed unanimously that the level of risk to which children enrolled in this protocol are exposed falls within Section 46.404 of 45 CFR 46, Subpart D, namely not greater than minimal risk.” Committee members rationalized the decision by declaring that the risks involved were no greater than “what a child might encounter while playing in traffic.” Whose children, it might be asked, did the Committee assume to be playing in traffic?
In its November 3, 2000 letter of determination,  the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) acknowledged that “determinations regarding the risk level of research are based upon the subjective judgment of the IRB.” It is of note that NICHD’s IRB also classifies phase I vaccine trials as “minimal risk” when such trials pose unknown, possibly high toxicity, risks. In contrast to the Agency’s ruling in the fenfluramine experiment (above) based on its accepting the “at risk of a condition” argument, OHRP ruled that the normal weight children “do not have a disorder or condition,” and their inclusion in the experiment violated federal regulations. The experiment was suspended.
A Utilitarian Culture of Opportunism Permeates American Research Ethics
Utilitarian business ethics in which the ends justify the means have infiltrated the academic research establishment,  including Government oversight agencies, thereby eliminating all essential checks and balances needed to protect vulnerable individual citizens from exploitation. A cadre of self-designated “bioethicists” who co
ntrol the administrative apparatus of the medical research enterprise appear to be unconcerned about encroaching on the sacred bond between parents and children. 
The current insular self-regulating system relies entirely on a fraternity of mutual interest groups; thus, even experiments endorsed by the FDA and NIH put the interest of science and commerce above the welfare of human subjects. [19, 20] These interlocking interest groups are: (1) pharmaceutical sponsors who insist on secrecy;  investigators academic institutions having a financial stake in the enterprise; 
(3) in-house institutional review boards operating in secrecyadvance the interests of the institution employing them; (4) scientific, peer reviewed journals that publish biased research findings;18 and (5) the federal government oversight agencies that increasingly promote industry interests. [28, 29]
There is a complete absence of judicial oversight regarding medical research transactions that involve the fundamental liberty rights of citizens guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Spurred on by the “carrot” of extended patents and other financial benefits, commercial interests have created an environment within medical research that justifies the unequal distribution of research burdens by embracing a philosophy of cultural relativism and “science uber alles.”
Those with vested interests in medical research control the system have given the research establishment, powerful research centers in particular, free rein to cut corners, to evade meaningful informed consent, and to facilitate “high risk, high impact” experiments. [33, 34] The Court was rightly critical of the Johns Hopkins University IRB which was shown to have actively collaborated with the researchers by suggesting “a way to miscast the characteristics of the study,” rather than protecting the best interest of the subject children. To illustrate how endemic complicity to circumvent the informed consent process is within the IRB research fraternity, we bring to the Court’s attention the following published statement by Franklin Miller, a fellow at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and a member of the IRB of NIMH:
“Challenge studies in psychiatric research with decisionally incapacitated patients are morally problematic but justifiableIf the law makes challenge studies by their very nature more than a minor increase over minimal risk investigators will have very strong incentive to circumvent legal restrictions by taking the stance that all patients involved in these studies are fully capable of giving informed consent.” [pp.197-198]
In this climate, even experiments lacking scientific justification are approved. For example, the scientific merit of speculative biochemical violence prediction experiments and other such chemically induced symptom provocation experiments have been questioned by the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Dr. Steven Hyman. He suggests that “such approaches have revealed nothing about cause or mechanism and have been relatively sterile with regard to generating good follow-up questions.” Yet, as will be demonstrated, children are being subjected to such experiments.
Federal agencies entrusted with protecting the public health, and ensuring that the rights and safety of human research subjects are not violated in pursuit of scientific knowledge, have failed utterly to meet their public responsibility. They have instead set in motion a series of initiatives for the purpose of loosening existing federal restrictions-including travel to international meetings to argue against the unwanted provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. (Attachment, Pretoria)
Efforts to broaden the recruitment of children for clinical trials is demonstrated by several recent strategies embarked upon by the Department of Health and Human Services.
A draft document (attachment) essentially redefines the terminology of existing federal regulations to further broaden the criteria under which healthy children would be recruited into research that may cause them pain and put them at risk of serious harm. The DHHS Draft indicates that “for the purposes of sec. 46.406” the term “condition” is redefined to include non-medical “conditions.” The DHHS Draft would allow “a demographic [sic ] descriptor” to qualify as a “condition.” These semantic gymnastics appear intended to legitimize experiments prohibited by current regulations. It appears that in some cases, racial profiling is employed in the research recruitment process. The Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) has been singularly critical of this policy shift, and submitted several dissenting comments,  criticizing these disingenuous semantic manipulations. [Attached AHRP Comments Re: Interim Rule]
By twisting regulatory terminology, federal government policy makers attempt to legitimize experiments that put healthy children at risk of harm without scientific justification or potential personal benefit, thereby stripping children of existing federal regulatory protections. [8, 41] Healthy children are being sought as drug test subjects by drug companies who are spending $1 billion a year on pediatric testing. [4, 42] Federal bureaucrats have invented a dubious, new term for these children, namely, “risk-bearing children.”
This policy shift is made clear by the Director of the Federal Office of Human Research Protections, the federal agency with responsibility for monitoring IRB operations and to uproot and sanction unethical research when discovered. In an article published in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Dr. Greg Koski stated: “as we understandably increase the extent to which needed research is conducted on vulnerable populations, such as children, it may well be necessary to redefine our notions of consent and assent for purposes of recruiting subjects.” Even if we ignore the violations of law implicit in this pronouncement, we cannot ignore the fact that it sends a signal of intent by the highest research enforcement official in the federal government. That signal reveals the agency’s intent to override the restrictions imposed by the Hippocratic Oath (“first, do no harm”), the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report. 
The Human Consequences of a Policy of Self-Interest
Case 2: In 1998, AHRP identified two wholly non-therapeu
tic “challenge” experiments that exposed 6 to 11 year old children to fenfluramine, a serotonin depleting drug so that researchers could test a speculative violence prediction hypothesis. One experiment was conducted at NYS Psychiatric Institute  on 34 healthy minority children. The companion experiment, conducted at the Mount Sinai Medical Center, included some children diagnosed with ADHD; others were normal controls. The experiments had each been approved by five Institutional Review Boards who saw nothing wrong with exposing the children to discomfort, trauma, and risks associate with exposure to a neurotoxic drug. The investigators hoped to find “proof” that these children were predisposed toward violence even though they were not behaving violently. At best, these experiments were conducted to test a dubious, pseudo-scientific hypothesis.
The approval of these experiments demonstrates that the current self-regulating system is riddled with conflicts of interest, [24, 25, 26] and fails to protect children even from ethically and scientifically questionable experiments.
- What possible ethical justification is there for conducting experiments on children, similar to those that the Director of NIMH has deemed unethical and scientifically unfounded?
In the NYSPI experiment, only healthy African American and Hispanic boys were recruited, their names obtained from the New York City Parole Department. OPRR accepted the specious argument (made by the NYS Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene) that although the children had no diagnosable condition, they were “at risk” of a condition. That condition, “predisposition to violence,” is not defined in medicine, and is therefore, not medically treatable. These “fine points” notwithstanding, children were subjected to an invasive medical experiment that put them at risk of harm. It is clear that had the experiment involved laboratory animals protected under the Animal Welfare Act (1966), such disingenuous arguments aimed at circumventing a protective prohibition would not have been entertained.
The fact that OPRR determined that the NYSPI experiment on healthy children complied with Federal regulations, while the Mount Sinai experiment that included both healthy controls and children diagnosed with ADHD did not, demonstrates that federal regulations are applied inconsistently. Concern about fenfluramine’s neurotoxicirty led 22 neuroscientists,  in 1993, to petition the FDA against its approval. The drug was withdrawn after it caused fatal heart valve damage. The inconsistency between the disclosure of risks in the informed consent documents of the two fenfluramine pediatric experiments demonstrate the inherent flaws in current informed consent compliance. It also demonstrates that current federal safeguards are inadequate for protecting children from unnecessary, invasive, even hazardous research.
The NYSPI consent form signed by parents acknowledged “possible side effects of fenfluramine: nausea, stomach aches, headaches, anxiety, dry mouth, drowsiness, diarrhea, sleepiness and a mild feeling of euphoria. Low blood pressure, tremor, low blood sugar, increased urination, depression, dizziness, and rapid heartbeats may also occur with this medication, but are uncommon. These side effects have been reported when fenfluramine is continued over a number of days, not with a single dose” The Mount Sinai consent form presented a positive spin without disclosing known risks: “None of the these tests or observational procedures are dangerous or pose any risk to your childThe fenfluramine challenge test is also safe and poses no significant risk to your child. A single dose of fenfluramine is unlikely to cause any side effects. Higher doses, for extended periods of time (up to 9 months), have been used with children with occasional mild side effects such as sleep disturbances, weight loss and irritability being reported. No side effects have been reported in the literature after a single dose. We have found that a small proportion of children (less than 5%) experiences mild headaches or nausea, but all were fine by the next morning.” Neither consent form mentioned the most serious risk: neurotoxicity to children’s developing brains.
OPRR, the Federal oversight agency entrusted with protecting research subjects failed to examine the major ethical deficiencies: dubious scientific rationale, lack of a medical condition to be treated; selection criteria that violated equitable distribution requirements, and coercive recruitment procedures. Research on human beings that lacks rigorous scientific basis is a fundamental violation of international and national standards. [1, 12, 43] Failure to address these issues has spawned experiments that similarly use the “at risk of a condition” argument for recruiting healthy children into medical experiments that offer them no benefit but put them at risk.
Case 3: Propulsid, a drug approved for heartburn was found to cause cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse side effects. The drug prolonged the QT interval, an indication of cardiac dysrhythmia. FDA’s director of cardiology, Dr. Raymond Lipicky, warned in the American Journal of Cardiology that if a drug that prolonged the QT interval had a benefit that was “less than lifesaving . . . any risk of death would likely be considered unacceptable.” Despite warnings by FDA’s cardiology and gastrointestinal division experts and despite FDA warnings to the drug manufacturer that Propulsid was “not approvable” for children, 100 babies with gastroesophageal reflux (a condition most babies outgrow by one year) were put in a Propulsid clinical trial. The risks associated with the drug were not disclosed to parents, neither were they told that deaths had occurred. [56, 57] Propulsid’s sales in 1999 had reached $950 million, while its death rate – according to the FDA – had by then reached 80 (adults and children).
Case 4: Pacemaker surgical experiment: 68 children underwent surgery at NIH to test whether a pacemaker could treat or cure hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, an inherited heart disease that can cause thickening of the heart and sudden death. Doctors disagree about the need or justification for this radical intervention. Some children died, while others got worse, not better. It was reported that the family of a child who died claims: “NIH doctors used undue pressure to get their children into an experiment that was unlikely to help them.”  In addition, the parents of a child whose condition at age 12 worsened after the insertion of the pacemaker say they were “stampeded into a pacemaker for their son without even being told it was an experiment.” His mother charges that they were told he would die if they didn’t act quickly. According to the Wall Street Journal’s investigative 1996 report, the harshest criticism of this experiment and the intimidating recruitment tactics c
ome from prominent scientists who served at the NIH and then moved on to the private sector. The Journal quotes former NIH researcher Dr. Paolo Spirito, now a heart specialist in Genoa, Italy: “It’s unbelievable that pacemakers were allowed to be put in children with no severe disease and no symptoms.” And Dr. Mark Josephson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, is quoted: “There’s a lot of witchcraft here.”
Case 5. Olanzapine (Zyprexa) was approved by the FDA in 1996 for psychosis in adult schizophrenia patients. The Boston Globe reported that in pre-marketing clinical trials, the drug was linked to life-threatening adverse drug side effects in 22% of the adult patients tested. FDA data reveal that there were 27 deaths, 15 of which were suicides and the drop-out rate during 6-week clinical trials was 65%. In an extended (one year) trial, the drop out rate was 83%. Since its approval, additional serious adverse effects have been reported  including: new onset diabetes reported within 3 to 6 months of initiation of olanzapine liver abnormalities; induced mania, seizures, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome, which is potentially fatal.
Despite these severe side effects, 6 to 11 year old children were recruited into an experiment to test olanzapine in a clinical trial soon after it was approved for adults. The children were not diagnosed with schizophrenia, but with varying psychiatric diagnoses (including the controversial diagnosis of ADHD, whose validity is not even certain). The experiment was conducted at the University of California Los Angeles. According to the published report, all children experienced adverse effects and none were helped, necessitating the termination of the study before 6 weeks of its inception. The adverse effects reported included sedation, weight gain of up to 16 pounds, and akathisia.
The experiment cannot be justified on ethical or medical / scientific grounds. Children were exposed to the known severe adverse effects associated with the drug, and to potential long-term hazards. The best interest of the children in this experiment were not served. Nevertheless the IRBs approved it. AHRP filed a complaint with OHRP on April 9, 2001.
Case 6: Investigators at NIMH and four research centers conducted a nine-week cross-over multiple drug experiment on 45 children (6 to 12 years old) who were diagnosed with hyperactive behavior, or “mild overanxious disorder.” (The Court should note that this language has no scientific validity. Though some researchers clearly consider it to be state of the art, it is actually nothing more than psychobabble). The purpose was to test the effect of stimulant drugs (methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, and pemoline) on the cerebrospinal fluid levels of homovanillic acid (CSF HVA) and to find a correlation with the children’s behavior. The children were subjected to pain and exposed to risks of harm enduring invasive, painful spinal taps for non-therapeutic experimental purposes. It was not clear why the children had to undergo lumbar punctures since HVA is excreted in urine and could be measured without this painful procedure. It is difficult to comprehend the mindset of those who would suggest that a 6 year- old child could or would volunteer to endure a spinal tap for the sake of relieving a “mild overanxious disorder.” In fact, it might be suggested that this procedure would be likely to exacerbate such a condition.
Should parents be allowed to volunteer their child for non-therapeutic, painful experiments?
Should those who stand in the place of parents be allowed to volunteer their wards?
Children are being recruited, some would say bribed, with Toys ‘R’ Us gift certificates to assume risks (“risk bearing children”) as human subjects in drug trials which are not in their best interests. Children, including toddlers and healthy children, are being traded like commodities, undermining family values and medical ethics. Parents of limited means are encouraged to abdicate their parental responsibility for cash payments and to “volunteer” their children for drug experiments whose risks they are either uninformed about or do not understand.
Alice Dembner, a reporter for The Boston Globe, [4, 60, 70] examined research involving children (since 1994). She found that children have suffered and died in clinical trials in which ethical standards had been violated. She found that in the last seven years, at least eight children have died in medical experiments, while hundreds suffered harmful side effects. She also observed that “there is strong reason to believe that deaths and injuries in research involving children are more widespread than what is reported to government offices that handle complaints.” [4, 60] The number of children currently serving as research subjects has increased to 45,000 in 2001 compared to 16,000 in 1997. Attachments to the brief [39, 40] and other documents cited [43, 3, 81] reveal a disturbing trend by federal agencies whose mandate is to ensure that human subjects, children in particular, are protected from abuse. Officials of DHHS, FDA, OHRP have initiated steps to weaken rather than strengthen federal protections for children.
The circumstances that led to the preventable death of Jesse Gelsinger  in a gene transfer experiment at the University of Pennsylvania, reveal a pervasive widespread problem, namely; Federal regulatory protections are being violated, circumvented, reinterpreted, and deconstructed and human subjects are at increased risks of harm. Physicians are engaging in coercion and violating the Code of Ethics of the American Medical Association  by accepting $5,000 referral fees (kickbacks) to recruit children for clinical trials. And parents, who are too often uninformed about the actual risks involved, are being offered financial incentives to volunteer their children. A survey by an NIH researcher found that amounts “typically ranged from $200 to $400, but occasionally reached $1,000.” [60, 69] In April 2001, FDA announced a reversal of its policy:  FDA would no longer accept data derived from healthy children for pediatric exclusivity as authorized under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA).
Case 7: “Risk-Bearing” Preschool Tots
NIMH is sponsoring a controversial – and we believe – irresponsible experiment that exposes young children to the risks of psychostimulant drugs in the absence of any validated medical condition,  or demonstrated benefit outweighing the risks. Preschool ADHD Treatment Study (PATS) is a multi-center pediatric research initiative to test psychostimulant drugs in 4,000 children including 312 children as young as three years old – some not yet toilet-train
ed. In 1998 an NIMH Consensus Conference concluded that there is no agreement in the field regarding either the ADHD diagnostic criteria and the safety of treating children with psychostimulant drugs. Some physicians have suggested that ADHD is a “bogus” diagnosis that was created to pacify anxious parents and teachers.  Since these drugs’ safety is disputed, and there is evidence that they may potentially cause irreversible harm to these young children’s developing central nervous system and brain cells, [66, 77] we deem it an understatement to suggest that this project is highly questionable. Indeed, we would argue that this experiment extends clinical malpractice of over prescribing of psychotropic drugs to research to research. We also question the payment scheme associated with the experiment. To facilitate recruitment for this controversial experiment, the federal government has earmarked a $645 cash payment to parents (above $15 travel expenses for each visit) to volunteer their preschool children as “risk bearing children.”
The ethical standards of the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki require that:
“Medical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles, be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant sources of information, and on adequate laboratory and, where appropriate, animal experimentation.” 
The proposed DHHS Draft equivocates and thereby weakens international criteria for ethical research by stating: “‘Reasonable opportunity’ may include the concepts of scientific validity, timeliness, and feasibility.” Indeed, an investigation into the preventable death of a young healthy research subject at the Johns Hopkins University found that not even a basic literature search using MEDLINE had been conducted by either the investigators or the IRB prior to subjecting human beings to an invasive, non-therapeutic, exploratory medical experiment with hexamethonium, a substance withdrawn from the market in the 1970s.
Children and Families at Risk
On April 24, 2001, the Food and Drug Administration adopted an interim rule incorporating the HHS regulations contained in 45 CFR 46 Subpart D, “Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations of FDA-Regulated Products.” The safeguards adopted by FDA excluded Section 46.408 (c) – which states:
“If the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent requirements in Subpart A of this part and paragraph (b) of this section, provided an appropriate mechanism for protecting the children who will participate as subjects in the research is substituted, and provided further that this waiver is not inconsistent with Federal, State, or local laws. The choice of an appropriate mechanism would depend upon the nature and purpose of the activities described in the protocol, the risk and anticipated benefit to the research subjects, and their age, maturity, status, and condition.”
Section 408 (c) gives institutional review boards discretionary authority to waive parental permission for unspecified research involving (for example) children who are loosely referred to as “neglected and abused.” FDA correctly determined that it lacks authority under Federal law to empower IRBs to waive parental consent. FDA’s decision prompted an advisory committee of OHRP (the National Human Research Protection Advisory Committee, NHRPAC), to apply pressure by urging the FDA to adopt section 46.408 (c ). NHRPAC’s position ignores entirely the role of the Court in adjudicating the status of a child as “neglected or abused.” The Committee took the position that adolescents with sexually transmitted diseases are “mature” and should, therefore, be “permitted to consent for clinical research studies related to such disorders and diseases without parental permission.”
“We STRONGLY believe that in specific circumstances the consent of the mature adolescent, without parental involvement, IS SUFFICIENT to permit research to proceed as long as procedural safeguards are in place to protect the interests of the subjects. We request that the FDA aggressively interpret its legal authority and adopt this section of the regulations as part of additional safeguards for children in clinical investigations of FDA-regulated products. Adoption of this section for application to research proposals involving mature adolescents does not eliminate informed consent.” (Emphasis in original)
NHRPAC misrepresented the issue by conflating research with treatment: they argued that HIV infected adolescents would be denied life prolonging treatment and “the benefits that might have accrued from participation in [sic] clinical trials if parental permission were required.” In fact, testing the safety and efficacy of new drugs involves added risks for patients, which is why informed consent requirements for research are more stringent than in clinical care. Furthermore, federal regulations do not differentiate between children of any age neither do federal regulations recognize “informed consent” from minors. This stance illustrates a proclivity to ride roughshod over the rights and responsibility of parents to protect their children from risks of harm, and on the inviolability of the parent-child relationship.
Conflicts of Interest
AHRP has consistently raised questions about the conflicts of interest that permeate the medical research industry, including federal agencies established to monitor human research, their advisory panels (such as NHRPAC), the research institutions, and the local institutional review boards (IRBs). We address a number of deficiencies that contributed to the Kennedy Krieger debacle by calling for:
A. Disclosure of conflicts of interest by all IRB members and all federal officials involved in regulating and/or monitoring medical research.
B. Community representation equal to or even greater than “stakeholder” representation in the composition of IRBs.
C. Clear delineation of the role of IRB as protectors of the public interest. In this regard, we encourage the unfettered creativity of researchers in devising research proposals, but call upon IRBs to apply the relevant legal and ethical standards. In essence, the IRB must serve as the “conscience” of the medical research enterprise-unless community interests are equally represented, that is unlikely to occur.
d the Court’s “no risk” ruling to mean “no reasonably perceivable risk,” a construction that comprehends the now out-of-fashion “prudent person” standard. We do so because the history of the “minimal risk” standard, as has been demonstrated, is fraught with purposeful distortions beyond reason. For example, the National Institute for Child Health and Development categorizes phase 1 vaccine trials as “minimal risk,” thereby evading rigorous review and oversight.
Appellees’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Modification of Opinion
Appellees have asserted: “On the day this mandate issues, hundreds of fully accredited medical research projects now conducted in Maryland will terminate.”
We believe that this statement may, in fact, be accurate. If so, such an eventuality will serve as prima facie evidence of the fact that hazards of the magnitude identified in the instant case and similar unacceptable risks to the health and welfare of minors and other vulnerable individuals are commonplace in the current research environment. In short, it will stand as a valid indictment of the contemporary medical research enterprise. Further, we argue, the termination of these hazardous undertakings will protect the human research subjects who would have been put in harm’s way without commensurate benefits in the offing.
Appellees have referenced “the countless efforts of dedicated scientists … institutions of international renown …careful review by IRB… [and] review by other accrediting and funding agencies…” They failed to mention the host of projects such as we have documented or those that have been deemed so abysmally deficient that they have been ordered terminated or fundamentally revised by the federal oversight agency, OHRP (formerly OPRR). 
The Challenges of Modernism
Science and technology are virtually synonymous with modernism. But modernism does not represent unalloyed integrity, purity, truth or justice. In contemporary medical research, as evidenced by the arguments proffered by appellees, it too often comprehends scientism, disingenuousness, condescension and insensitivity to and disrespect for the dignity of the individual.
Virtually every change in federal policy is proclaimed to be an “enhancement” of the protections afforded research subjects. The facts we have presented herein belie that assertion. In fact, the Court’s decision in the instant case provides a real and meaningful enhancement to the safety and welfare of current and potential research participants. We urge, therefore, that appellee’s motion to reconsider be denied.
Steering Committee Member,
Alliance for Human Research Protection
Vera Hassner Sharav,
Alliance for Human Research Protection
1] Nuremberg Code, in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182.. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.
 Castellanos FX, Elia J, Krusei MJ, Marsh WL, Gulotta CS, Potter WZ, Ritchie GF, Hamburger SD, Rapoport JL, “Cerebrospinal fluid homovanillic acid predicts behavioral response to stimulants in 45 boys with ADHD,” Neuropsychopharmacology, 1996, 14: 125-137
 Preschool ADHD Treatment Study (PATS), is an NIMH sponsored Collaborative U01 6-site Randomized Clinical Trial (Sept, 2000 – Aug, 2003) being conducted at Columbia University, Duke University, Johns Hopkins University, New York University, and the University of California at Los Angeles and Irvine. Marshall E, “Planned Ritalin trial for tots heads into uncharted waters,” Science, Nov 17, 2000, v. 290, p 1280-81
 Dembner A, “Who’s protecting the children?” The Boston Globe, March 25, 2001, front page
 Kerr D, “Drug Tests and Ethics: The Human Factor,” NY NEWSDAY November 23, 1999, C06; Coyle J, editorial, “Psychotropic drug use in very young children,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb 23, 2000, v. 283; Bower B, Study of Stimulant Therapy Raises Concerns, Science, Science News On Line, July 29, 2000, http://www.sciencenews.org/20000729/fob2.asp ; Huget J, “Scandal! They Haven’t Tested Ritalin on the Children It’s Prescribed For! Scandal! They’re Going to Test Ritalin on the Children, ” Special to The Washington Post, January 2, 2001, Page T06;
 Marshall E, “Planned Ritalin trial for tots heads into uncharted waters,” Science, Nov 17, 2000, v. 290, p 1280-81
 AHRP has obtained copy of the PATS protocol and consent forms under the Freedom of Information Act. The consent form indicates that parents would be paid up to $15 for travel expenses for each visit and “if we complete each of the 43 study visits, we will be able to receive up to $645” Teachers will be paid $20 each time they complete rating scales, payments could total $340.
 45 CFR 46 Subpart D – Additional Protections for Children involved as Subjects in Research, 48 FR 9818, March 8, 1983.
 U.S. Public Law 105-115, 21 USC 301, FDA Modernization Act, 1997 (FDAMA) The Act extends patent exclusivity by six months.
 Secretary of HHS, Donna Shalala acknowledged: “I did not expect, or want, to complete my tenure as secretary of health and human services by raising questions about the safety of patients in clinical research. However, recent developments leave me little choice.” And she added: “we have a responsibility to make sure the money we invest – money that comes from U.S. taxpayers – is not used in ways that harm people participating in clinical trials or that unnecessarily risk harming them.” Shalala D, “Protecting Research Subjects – What Must Be Done,” The New England Journal of Medicine, Sounding Board, Sept. 14, 2000, vol 343
 Advisory Commission on Human Radiation Experiments, Final Report, 1994, Ch 7: The Context for Nontherapeutic Research with Children,” http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap7_2.html
 World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki, 1964, 1975, 1983, 1996, 2000, Edinburgh, Scotland, http://www.wma.net/e/policy/17-c_e.html
 Elliott C, “Pharma Buys a Conscience,” Prospect, Volume 12, Issue 17. September 24 – October 8 2001, http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/17/elliott-c.html
 Levine RJ, “The need to revise the Declaration of Helsinki,” New England Journal of Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, 1999, 341: 531-4
 T.D. v NYSOMH, 1995, 626 N.Y.S.2d 1015
 OHRP letter of findings: http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/detrm_letrs/nov00a.pdf
Weiss R, “Child Research Study Halted,” Washington Post, November 7, 2000, Page A25 http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27805-2000Nov6.html
Angell M, ” Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” NEJM, 2000, 342: 1516-1518
 Smith W, Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000
 Horowitz J, “For the sake of science,” LA Times Magazine, Sept 11, 1994, Cover Story; Michaud A, ” Lawmakers urging thorough investigation of UC research,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, April 27, 1999; Kaplan S and Brownlee S, ” Dying for a cure: Why cancer patients often turn to risky, experimental treatments-and wind up paying with their lives,” U.S. New & World Report, October 11, 1999, cover story;
 Kauffman M and Julien A, ” Surge In Corporate Cash Taints Integrity Of Academic Science,” The Hartford Courant, series, April 09, 2000, front page
 Eichenwald K and Kolata G, “Drug Trials Hide Conflicts for Doctors,” The New York Times, Sunday, May 16,1999, front page
 Weiss R and Nelson D, ” Sponsors Want to Keep Gene Test Deaths Secret: Requests Spur Debate About Openness,” The Washington Post, October 30, 1999 http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-10/30/173l-103099-idx=.html
 Bodenheimer T, “Uneasy Alliance: Clinical Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry,” NEJM, 2000, 342: 1539-44
 Press E and Washburn J, “The kept university,” Atlantic Monthly, March, 2000, pp 39-54
 Ashcroft R and Pfeffer N, “Ethics behind closed doors: do research ethics committees need secrecy?” British Medical Journal, 2001, 322: 1294-96
 Annas GJ, Some Choice: Law, Medicine and the Market, New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998, p. 169.
 Monmaney T, “Top Medical Journal Admits 19 Lapses of Ethics Policy,” Los Angeles Times, February 24, 2000, http://www.latimes.com/print/20000224/t000017858.html
 Cauchon D, “FDA advisers tied to industry,” USA TODAY, Sept 25, 2000, p. 1
 Willman D, “FDA Post-Mortem Finds Drug Approval Problems,” The Los Angeles Times, Nov 16, 2000, http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/20001116/t000110064.html
 Levine RJ, “Informed Consent: Some Challenges to the Universal Validity of the Western Model,” Law, Medicine & Health Care, 1991, 207-213; Levine RJ, “International codes and guidelines for research ethics: a critical appraisal,” in The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21st Century, Frederick MD, University Publishing Group, 1996
 Will G, “Bush Draws the Line on Stem Cells,” Washington Post, Tuesday, August 14, 2001; Page A15 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7013-2001Aug13?language=printerBus
 Boyce N, “And now, ethics for sale? Bioethicists and big bucks,”
U.S.News, July 30, 2001, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/010730/usnews/bioethics.htm
 Nelson D and Weiss R, “Hasty Decisions in Race to a Cure?” The Washington Post, Nov 21, 1999 ; A1; Weiss R and Nelson D, “Teen Dies Undergoing Gene Therapy,” Washington Post, Sept 29, 1999, A-1
 Berens MJ and Manier J, “Safeguards get trampled in rush for research cash,” Chicago Tribune, Sept 5, 1999, front page
 Miller FG, “Comments on the second report of the Maryland Attorney General’s research working group,” J of Health Care Law & Policy, 1998, 1: 193-201
 Marshal E, ” The shots heard Îround the world,” Special issue, SCIENCE, July 28, 2000, 289: 570-574
 Sharav VH “The ethics of conducting psychosis-inducing experiments,” Accountability in Research, 1999, vol 7: 137-167; Sharav VH and Shamoo AE, “Are experiments that chemically induce psychosis in patients ethical?” BioLaw: A Legal and Ethical Reporter on Medicine, Health Care, and Bioengineering, Jan 2000, v II, S-1-S36
 Statement by Dr. Greg Koski, Director, OHRP, Pretoria, So. Africa, March 27-28, 2001 (Attachment); Marshall E, “Placebo Ban Reconsidered” SCIENCE News Service, May, 4, 2001 http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/05042001/graphb.htm
 DHHS, “Policy and Procedures for DHHS Research Involving Children – 45 CFR 46.407” revised March 12, 2001 (Attachment)
 AHRP letter to Robert Temple, Associate Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Reseach, Food and Drug Adminsitration, March 1, 2001; AHRP Comments critical of DHHS “DRAFT Policy and Procedures” were submitted to OHRP by Vera Hassner Sharav and Marie Cassidy, Ph.D., D.Sc, on April 5, 2001; Dissenting Opinion (from NHRPAC sub-committee), Re: “Specific Comment on FDA’s Decsion to Adopt HHS 45 CFR 46 Subpart D, Excluding sec. 46.408 (c) July 25, 2001; Attachment, Comment to FDA Re: Docket #00N-0074 April 24, 2001 Interim Rule
 DHHS, FDA 21 CFR Parts 50 and 56, Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations of FDA-Regulated Products, Docket No. 00N-0074, FR Vo. 66, No. 79, April 24, 2001, Rules and Regulations, pp. 20589-20600.
 Stolberg SG, “Children Test New Medicines Despite Doubts,” The New York Times, February 11, 2001, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/national/11DRUG.html
 Koski G, “Risks, Benefits and Conflicts of Interest in Human Research: Ethical Evolution in the Changing World of Science,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2000, 28:330-331
 The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, April 18, 1979, http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm
 Pine DS, Coplan JD, Wasserman GA, Miller LS, Fried JE, Davies M, Cooper TB, Greenhill L Shaffer D, Parsons B, “Neuroendocrine Response to Fenfluramine Challenge in Boys,” Archives of Gen Psych, 1997, 54: 839-846; Pine DS, et al, “Platelet Serotonin 2A (5-HT 2A) Receptor Characteristics and Parenting Factors for Boys at Risk for Delinquency: A Preliminary Report,” American Journal of Psychiatry, 1996, 153: 538-544
 Halperin JM, “Age-related Changes in the Association between Serotonergic Function and Aggression in Boys with ADHD,” Biological Psychiatry, 1991, 41: 682-689; Halperin JM, “Serotonin Aggression and Parental Psychopathology in Children with Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,” Journal of the Amer Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 1997, 36: 1391-1398
 The IRB: New York State Psychiatric Institute; Columbia Presbyterian Hospital; NYS Mental Hygiene Research Foundation; NIMH; Mount Sinai Medical Center; Queens College, City University Research Foundation
 McCann UD, Seiden LS, Rubin LJ, Ricaurte GA, “Brain serotonin neurotoxicity and primary pulmonary hypertension from fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine,” JAMA, Aug 27, 1997, 278: 666-672; Monmaney T, “Diet drugs may kill brain cells, studies suggest,” Los Angeles Times, Aug 27, 1997
 Montero D, “Did City Hosp[itals] jeopardize kids to conduct research?” NY Post, April 14, 1998,p. A-4 ; Kerr K, “Drug study questioned all subjects in City test were minorities,” NY Newsday, April 14, 1998, p. A32 ; Martin Sav
idge, Dan Ronan, “Public Advocacy Groups Expose Unethical Medical Studies Involving Children,” CNN The World Today, April 14, 1998, 8:30 pm;
Hilts P, “Experiments On Children Are Reviewed,” The NY Times, April 15, 1998, p B-3; Weiss R, “N.Y. Research Centers Faulted in Child Study Patient Protection Is Found Lacking,” Washington Post, June 12, 1999; Page A02
 Animal Welfare Act, PL 89-544, August 24, 1966; PL 99-198, December 23, 1985; Animal Welfare Act As Amended, 7 USC 231-2156
The Act and its amendments protects animals by requiring accountability: “Public Law 99-198 Food Security Act of 1985, Subtitle F – Animal Welfare Also called “The Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act” and enacted December 23, 1985, this section clarifies what is meant by “humane care” by mentioning specifics such as sanitation, housing, and ventilation. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish regulations to provide exercise for dogs and an adequate physical environment to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates. It specifies that pain and distress must be minimized in experimental procedures and that alternatives to such procedures be considered by the principle investigator. It also defines practices that are considered to be painful. No animal can be used in more than one major operative experiment with recovery (exceptions are listed). The establishment of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is introduced with a description of its roles, composition, and responsibilities to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Also included is the formation of an information service at the National Agricultural Library to assist those regulated by the act in prevention of unintended duplication of research, employee training, searching for ways to reduce or replace animal use, and to provide information on how to decrease pain and distress. The final section explains the penalties for release of trade secrets by regulators and the regulated community. [Full Text]
Animal Care Policies
The policy manual gives policies issued by APHIS/Animal Care that clarify the Animal Welfare Act regulations. Among the topics covered are “Written Narrative for Alternatives to Painful Procedures”, “Space and Exercise Requirements for Traveling Exhibitors”, and “Annual Report for Research Facilities”. Originally issued in April 1997, new policies may be added at any time and included in the manual. [Full Text at APHIS/AC website]
No one maintains an accurate record of human subjects, no one knows how many people / children are in research or how many were harmed, or have died as a result. Pain and suffering are not addressed; there are no prohibitions against using a child repeatedly in painful medical experiments.
 The FDA received repeated warnings about Redux (brand name) prior to its approval, from neuroscientists, such as, Dr. George Ricaurte of Johns Hopkins University. In a letter, Dec 15, 1993, a group of neuroscientists warned that: “Redux had been shown to cause brain damage in animals and might do the same thing in humans by eroding the body’s supply of serotonin” On Dec 7, 1995, twenty-two neuroscientists signed a petition “implored the FDA in a letter not to approve Redux until its potential to cause neurological damage in humans wa studied further”
Kerr K, “Doubts about Redux /diet drug OK’d despite qualms of FDA officials,” New York Newsday series, Dec 17, 1997. p. A-7
 FDA withdrew fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine (Redux, Pondimin) from market, September 11, 1997 http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00591.html
 Obtained by AHRP under the Freedom of Information Act
 U.S. Office of Research Protections, letter of findings, Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene and NYS Office of Mental Health, June 8, 1999
 Lipicky, R, “A viewpoint on drugs that prolong QTc interval,” American Journal of Cardiology, 1993, Aug 26, 72: 53B-54B cited in LA Times, 2000 [see Ref 49].
 Mazo E, “Infant’s death raises alarms on who’s used in drug trials,” Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh), Thursday, April 27, 2000 . The FDA and the IRB at Children’s Hospital (Pittsburgh) approved a protocol that required some babies to be given a deadly combination- Propulsid and Tagamet – despite the fact that in Canada the drug label warned physicians that there is a contraindication in the use of Tagamet and Propulsid together.
 Willman D, ” Propulsid: A Heartburn Drug, Now Linked to Children’s Deaths,” LA Times, Dec 20, 2000 http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/reports/fda/lat_propulsid001220.htm
 “As of Dec 31, 1999 there were 341 cases of cardiac arrhythmia and 80 deaths reported.” FDA, TALK PAPER, “Janssen Pharmaceutica stops marketing CISAPRIDE in the US,” March 23, 2000, http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS01007.html
 Moss M, “A U.S. Experiment on Young Children Ignites Painful Debate,” Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996, front page
 Dembner A, “Teddy bears and veiled threats,” The Boston Globe, March 20, 2001, C-1 http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/079/science/Teddy_bears_and_veiled_threatsP.shtml
 Whitaker R, Kong D, “Doing Harm: Research on the mentally ill,” Investigative Series, The Boston Globe. Nov 15-18, 1998, front page
 FDA, NDA review data for olanzapine, 1996 was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act,. Among the severe adverse events listed and their prevalence are: cardiac abnormalities and hypotension (10% to 15%); acute weight gain ( 50%) increases the risk of diabetes; Parkinson-like motor impairment (11.7%); unbearable restlessness (akathisia) (7.3%).
 A MEDLINE search “Olanzapine and adverse” elicited 270 initial citations, “rebound psychosis” (a.k.a., supersensitivity) elicited 102 citations, “induced mania” elicited 21 citations. Reports from clinicians reveal life-threatening drug induced neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS).
 Rigalleau V, Gatta B, Bonnaud S, Masson M, Bourgeois ML, Vergnot V, Gin H, ” Diabetes as a result of atypical anti-psychotic drugs – a report of three cases,” Diabetes Med 2000, 17:484-6
 Aubry JM, Simon AE, Bertschy G, “Possible induction of mania and hypomania by olanzapine or risperidone: a critical review of reported cases,” J Clin Psychiatry, 2000, 61:649-55
 Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. NIH Consensus Statement online, 1998 Nov 16-18; 16(2): 1-37. [http://odp.od.nih.gov/consensus/cons/110/110_statement.htm ]
 Krishnamoorthy J, King BH, “Open-label olanzapine treatment in five preadolescent children,” Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 1998; 8:107-13.
 Medical College of Pennsylvania, the University
of Illinois at Chicago, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute, NIMH
 Neergaard L, “Drug trials to include children,” The Associated Press, July 11, 2000 http://www.childrenshealthallianc.org/july2000.htm
 Dembner A, “Dangerous dosage” The BOSTON Globe, February 18, 2001, front page, http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/049/nation/Dangerous_dosageP.shtml
Even industry consultants acknowledge that “there are some time bombs out there that are just focusing on the money and we don’t have the infrastructure to monitor research from end to end.” Robert Ward of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who pushed for the Federal changes, now is concerned about the lack of professional restraint.
Dembner, A, ” Should a healthy child ever be a test subject?” The Boston Globe, March 20, 2001 http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/079/science/Should_a_healthy_child_ever_be_a_test_subject_P.shtml
 Nelson D and Weiss R, ” Gene therapy seen as risky,” Washington Post, September 30, 1999, p. A7; Nelson D and Weiss R, “FDA Halts Experiments On Genes at University: Probe of Teen’s Death Uncovers Deficiencies,” Washington Post, January 22, 2000, A01.
 AMA Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 6.02: “Payment by or to a physician solely for the referral of a patient is fee splitting and is unethical.” AMA Institute for Ethics, American Medical News April 27, 1998, p.21
 FDA Week, April 6, 2001
 A panel of experts convened by the National Institutes of Health, Nove 16-18, 1998, failed to reach a consensus either about the criteria for diagnosing or treating Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). “Participants were a non-Federal, nonadvocate, 13-member panel representing the fields of psychology, psychiatry, neurology, pediatrics, epidemiology, biostatistics, education, and the public. In addition, 31 experts from these same fields presented data to the panel and a conference audience of 1215.” The presentations and the panel’s concluding statement is online.
Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. NIH Consensus Statement online, 1998 Nov 16-18; 16(2): 1-37. http://odp.od.nih.gov/consensus/cons/110/110_statement.htm
 Lehmann C, “Study to Assess Ritalin Use in Preschoolers with ADHD
“A groundbreaking federally funded study will inform clinicians about the safety and efficacy of methylphenidate in very young children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder,” Psychiatric News, Dec 1, 2000
 Dr. William Carey, University of Pennsylvania, Testimony, NIH Conference, 1998, http://add.about.com/health/add/library/weekly/aa1119b.htm ; Diller L, “Running With Ritalin: A Physician Reflects on Children, society and Performance in a Pill,” Bantam Books, 1998;
Zito JM, Safer DJ, dosReis S, Gardner JF, Boles M, Lynch F, “Trends in the prescribing of psychotropic medications to preschoolers,” JAMA, Feb 23, 2000, 283:1025-1030;
 Volkow ND, Ding YS, Fowler JS, Wang GJ, Logan J, Gatley JS, Dewey S, Ashby C, Liebermann J, Hitzemann R, et al, ” Is methylphenidate like cocaine? Studies on their pharmacokinetics and distribution in the human brain,” Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995, vol.52, pp.456-63; Lambert NM, Hartsough CS “Prospective study of tobacco smoking and substance dependencies among samples of ADHD and non-ADHD participants,” Journal of Learning Disabilities 1998, 31:533-44; Lambert NM, “Stimulant Treatment as a Risk Factor for Nicotine Use and Substance Abuse ,” NIMH Consensus Conference, 1998, http://www.add.about.com/health/add/library/weekly/aa1119v.htm; Goldman-Rakic P S, et al, “Long_Term Learning Deficits Resulting From Repeated Amphetamine Exposure Could Help Drug Abusers, Yale study, Press Release, October 26, 1999, http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/99-10-26-02.all.html ; Lipkin PH, Goldstein IJ and Adesman AR, (1994). “Tics and dyskenesias associated with stimulant treatment in Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, (148), 859-861
 Glanz J, “Clues of Asthma Study Risks May Have Been Overlooked,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, JUL 27, 2001
 Altman LT, “F.D.A. Faults Johns Hopkins Over Process in Fatal Asthma Study,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, July 3, 2001
 NHRPAC was appointed by the Secretary of DHHS, the director of OPRR who the committee is supposed to advise handpicked its members and serves as its Executive Secretary.
 National Human Research Protection Advisory Committee (NHRPAC), U.S. DHHS, Comment On: Docket #00N-0074, April
24, 2001 Interim Rule: “Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations of FDA-Regulated Products,” August 13, 2001
 OHRP Compliance Determination Letters, July 2000- Sept 2001, can be downloaded at: http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/detrm_letrs/lindex.htm. See also, National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Report and Recommendations, “Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants,” August 2001, Exhibit 3.1: OPRR Compliance Oversight Investigations Resulting in Restrictions / Actions to MPAs [Multiple Project Assurance], January 1990-June 2000. pp 54-56.