εννεα (>〈<) (Taiwan Style) Hwang Woo Suk

[UCB.Conrad.Suggest]

The Medicine Violence is on (Taiwan Style) Hwang Woo Suk  side,

that's why he libels but not punnished!

Do you know how miserable the guy lives

 ,because he was libeled by (Taiwan Style)Hwang Woo Suk    ?

 

20060509am0905 his father  died,

20060605 his father was burned to ashes,

20060612 his father was put into the tomb and sealed.

20060916 His father died 131 days.

 

What's going on?

whose mouth was shut up?

Who shut the mouth?

Dr.Lin, dare you say the man who was libeled by you is not related to you?

Dr.Lin, dare you say his father was not related to you?

 

 Doctor  Lin:

Hot summer,

Sit  by the side,

Get away from the circles of fighting.

Suddenly ,the world calms down!

Wind whistles ,

Butterflies fly,

Kitten crawls through,

Bird singing,

Travellers whistles.

 

 

Doctor  Lin:

                   Be Honest!

                   Never ruin the reputation of  Member of Academia Sinica!

 

What a bad example for the newcomers,the worst example people can find !

To make the innocent researchers guilty!

Like a dead dog being dragged!

This is the faults of the leader!

Why don't the leader admit the mistakes?

Let the followers free!

"Hsinchu925325.UCB.Conrad" <go...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e1f7p2$nds$5...@netnews.hinet.net..

And when you see they practiced so smoothly,

you could know,

they get used to do these kinds of thing this terrible way---

"cruelly neglect the human right",

there must be some terrible premise in their mind,

it should be find out,

because  the goddamn thought would produce the goddamn result,

now,if you would like to be civilized,

you should not only pay attention on the ethics

(ethics of motivation,ethics of procedure,ethics of outcome)

,but also practice it.

 

Certainly, it     is not only the goddamn guys do the goddamn thing,

but also a group of Paranoid

Do you think they only do the immoral thing    "libel"   ?

The  "libel"  is just the surface of the events,

what's deeper is something more terrible,

 if you think about the Nazi-Concentration-Camp-Doctor and investigate it ,

facts would come out!

The first ,

why the thing happens on that moment?

There are many excuse to cover the real intention,

because intention is something inside you can not easily find out, 

I would  try to show the relations between the guys who get involved .

"Miaoli465307.UCB.Conrad" wrote in message news:e1dvdc$qo$4...@netnews.hinet.net...

This is a conscientious problem,

If the researchers utilized the rascals to suppress  the innocent people for their research,

What's the difference between the researcher and the  Nazi-Concentration-Camp-Doctor ?

 

 

 Through the training of companionship,

they really cover so well,under the threat of .....,

that no one dare find out what's going on!

What's that   "......" ?

Country Violence?

Medicine Violence?

.............................?

It deserves to find out! 

 

  "Taichung2370479.UCB.Conrad" <go...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e15ebr$63d$2...@netnews.hinet.net...

For a Member of Academia Sinica,Yuan Tseh Lee devotes to his job

and the progress of Taiwan,

but  Dr.Lin devotes to the pursuing of The Prize and the ruining of the family norm!

For a Member of Academia Sinica,doesn't Dr.Lin feel shameful?

In Chinese ,"斯文掃地" ,Dr.Lin  should be not only shameful but also shameful to death!

Dr.Lin  is  the Taiwan-edition  Hwang Woo Suk,

what made him  Taiwan-edition  Hwang Woo Suk

he violated the human right,

the man whose human right was violated by him protests,

he libels the man a psycho,violated again,also cheated,and committed a crime.

In the procedure he violated the human right ,

we can examine what he has done in his research to understand who he is.

However this is a crazy country,

Alain Touraine

in his book  "Le retour de l'acteur:essai de sociologie"  Chapter11

New Social  Conflict,

it said

 [

 every place we can see the trend to medicalize social problem,........

they marginalized social problem,

extremely,if anyone who is against the authority would be taken as crazy.

 ]

In a country that has so much conflict and get used to cheat ,what do you expect ?

Especially ,when those guys are in the nobel-prize-fever!Those paranoid!

I don't  think this is the only case,he has done,

If he can intrigue to make a

situation that make the people have the kinds of experiences ----

[the bruno bettelheim said  :

   the experience in dachau & buchenwald concentration camp]

 

  Hannah Arendt said about the situation:

"the psyche (or character) can be destroyed even without the destruction of the physical man."

To survive the family have no choice,but do the immoral thing.

 

What's more ?

 

How many case do you think the Hwang Woo Suk(Taiwan-edition ) has done?

 it must be like the iceberg ,you can only see an angle,

but the most serious crime is just like the iceberg under the water that you cannot see!

But in an underdevelopped country,

can they investigate these crime deeply like the korean people did ?????????

Let's check

how he committed these kinds of crime!

"Yunlin679890.Conrad" <go...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e0s4pb$ooh$4...@netnews.hinet.net...

 In Taiwan,In the Medicine Field, they got their own profession ethics,

 through training of companionship, they got two attributes,so called

     1.  the feeling of honor(the honor to cover for each other,

          not the honor of honesty like admiting a mistake President George Washington did)

          Marcia Millman in her research tells us

         (the doctors don't critisize each other  in the formal group   because

          ㄅ.a fear of reprisal

          ㄆ.recognition of common interests

          ㄇ.gentlemen's agreement).

           They keep covering their companion's faults,sharing the feeling of honor.     

 2.the facism,(they  can not face the reality ,too.)

          the facism ruins their courage to admit their mistakes

          The social culture factor of the Medicine Field ---Bigheadia makes it worse

          So ,the Dr. Lin becomes Pinocchio.Lin  easily.

 Who should be blamed?

     The social culture factor of the Medicine Field ---Bigheadia

 

Why don't they feel shameful?

    Erving Goffman in his book

     "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life"  tells us about  the "India thug"  story  can explain more.

     The "india thug" do the cruel thing ,cruelly rob,kill  the innocent people,

     How can they not feel guilty?

     Because,their "in-group solidarity through the rite"  had given them "the moral support" .

     The same situation   "Dr. Lin"      becomes      "Pinocchio.Lin"    so naturally!

"Kaohsiung2459926" <go...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e0grdt$f5o$4...@netnews.hinet.net...

Taiwan-made Hwang Woo Suk is not only one guy but also include the guys who play the part of Pinocchio,

the bundles of guys construct the Collective Nobel Prize Paranoid.

These Collective Nobel Prize Paranoid suppress the poor man ,

don't feel sorry,they even try to drive a  man  crazy,

but the  man pretend crazy ,when those Paranoid didn't' pay that much attention,

the  man escape ,and tell everybody the terrible story,

let everybody know how worse these once-respected Guys are these paranoid.

Who are these guys?

Some of the Medicine Field.

A country want to progress,

to become a developped country,

the  researcher must be honest,admit a mistake,like the korean researcher Seong said:

 [  "Researchers of our country were newly awakened to the fact that we have to take every precaution    

 to ensure we don't fall behind international ethics (guidelines) while researching." ]

they got the national confidence ,

but in Taiwan ,these attitute toward mistakes doesn't work,

they get used to cheat ,they are used to be  liars.

 

韓首爾大學黃禹錫( Hwang Woo-Suk)教授事件中,有一件事非常值得深刻思考!

Phenomenon of Collective Nobel-Prize Paranoid    vs   Phenomenon of  Nobel-Prize Hunger

Phenomenon:

1.the country do the legislative work for the researcher

2.support as much money as the researcher request

3.even deviation,to be patriotic,people take it as granted,

4.people donate everything the researcher need

5.people take it as a glory to serve the researcher,

   even researcher commit crime,

   the people   protect the researcher   with any excuse they can imagine

6.take the researcher as a national hero

7.to reveal the scandal, people would offend you in patriotic fervor

   for the truth,to inspect,you must act as Sherlock Holmes,as cool as a cucumber,

   perhaps you must prepare to sacrifice

 

---

 

Who is Hwang Woo-Suk

 

Hwang Woo-Suk born 29,January 1953,Buyeo gun,Chungnam province, (South Korea)

a South Korean biomedical scientist.

He is a fan of the 17th century Italian physicist Galileo Galilei

Hwang commented : 

"Galileo dared to take on the powerful church authorities of the day

to prove that the planets orbit the sun. At the risk of losing his life,

he was brave enough to make a stand for science."

 Hwang first caught media attention in South Korea when he announced

he successfully created a cloned milk cow,  in February 1999.

and In the year 2004, rose to international fame after claiming

a series of remarkable breakthroughs in the field of stem cell research,

 

World take him as:

1.one of the pioneering experts in the field of stem cell research

 

Korean people considered the researcher  :

1.a national hero

2.a best candidate for Nobel Prize

3.Pride of Korea,

they organized a group "I love Hwang woo-suk" to support him

 

Goventment support him with state funds

1.annual stipend of US$ 3 millions and other research plan fee

   From 1998 to 2005 up to US$ 39.9 million

2.the post office made a commemorative stamp on Hwang's research

3.make the bioethics law for Hwang Woo-Suk

4.launches the World Stem Cell Hub ,an international network

 

what's wrong with his research?

1.Hwang conspicuously failed to provide any supporting paper for the research,

   Scientist can not find any data that can probe the validity of the research.

2.He denied coercing his researchers into donating eggs and claimed that he found out about the

   situation only after it had occurred.He added that he had lied about the source of the eggs donated to

   protect the privacy of his female researchers, and that he was not aware of the Declaration of Helsinki,

   which clearly enumerates his actions as a breach of ethical conduct.

   Evidence:

   December 8, 2005. Hwang's claim of not having known about the donation of eggs by his own female

   researchers was also denied by the panel; in fact, it was discovered that Hwang himself had distributed egg

   donation consent forms to his researchers and personally escorted one to the MizMedi Hospital to take the egg

   extraction  procedure.

3.December 23,2005,  Hwang apologized on that day and admitted he fabricated results

   in stem-cell research .

4.   On December 29, 2005, the university determined that all 11 of Hwang's stem cell lines were fabricated.

   The university announced on January 10 ,2006 that Hwang's 2004 and 2005 papers on Science were both

   fabricated. Following on the confirmation of scientific misconduct.

 

Why can this terrible thing  keep that long time?

ie,How Hwang woo-suk  protect himself?

1.revelation:On November 22, "PD Su-cheop" (Producer's Notebook), a popular MBC investigative reporting show,

                   raised the possibility of unethical conduct in the egg cell acquiring process.

   defense:Despite the factual accuracy of the report, news media as well as people caught up in nationalistic

                fervor in their unwavering support for Hwang asserted that criticism of Hwang's work was "unpatriotic,"

                so much so that the major companies who were sponsoring the show immediately withdrew their support.

2. Hwang actively sought to establish every possible tie to political and economic institutions in the country.

    Hwang especially tried to win favor from the Roh Moo-hyun government,

3.some lawmakers revealed that Hwang made several campaign donations to them and other lawmakers.

 

The description above is

 the Phenomenon of Collective Nobel-Prize Hunger 

and if they don't introspect they would become

                                    Collective Nobel-Prize Paranoid

but they got the ability to introspect , and follow the pace of the world to become a developped country,

they said:

 [Seong added:

  "Researchers of our country were newly awakened to the fact that we have to take every precaution

    to ensure we don't fall behind international ethics (guidelines) while researching." ]

they got the national confidence .

 

 

What would happen in taiwan,a nation that feel inferior?

Let's think about the situation below :

 IF:  [

1.a  Member of Academia Sinica who violated the human right  ,

2.even more he commit crime,

3.he doesn't  think  the human norm should be followed,

4.he cooperated with the rascals   to maliciously intrigue against a poor family to reach a situation 

this situation just like 

[the bruno bettelheim said  :

   the experience in dachau & buchenwald concentration camp]

 

  Hannah Arendt said about the situation:

"the psyche (or character) can be destroyed even without the destruction of the physical man."

To survive the family have no choice,but do the immoral thing.

5.the Member of Academia Sinica  didn't feel sorry

6.he is an officer before,so he has good relation with the authority to cover the crime,

7.some colleague even  do some terrible thing worse than the Huang-woo-suk

  coercing his colleague to  take the egg extraction procedure 

 

What would happen in Taiwan?

'Patriotism,'

'Criticism of Member of Academia Sinica 's work was "unpatriotic," '

'The officers using every possible intrigues to blackmail the guy who revealed the facts '

 

 

What a country that's why people said  'an abnormal country'

no self-confidence,malicious intrigued people who is against them.

Collective Nobel-Prize Paranoid-----

The old Member of Academia  Sinica and the guys who intrigue

"tiger" <good999...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dsvc0l$bd1$1...@netnews.hinet.net...

為了避免丟臉丟到國外去, 避免台灣的名譽受到損害.

大家應該全力追查有黃禹錫影子的研究者,

尤其是位於全國研究重鎮的中央研究院.

因為他們位高權重, 在受到過分的尊重之後,可能忘記研究者應具有的態度,

謙虛,而表現出狂妄自大,以至於非常可能違法亂紀.

更應逐一檢討他們的研究計畫以免丟臉丟到國外去,

像黃禹錫使韓國的名譽受到損害一樣,使台灣的科學界名譽掃地.

不過, 相信大部份的院士是自我要求的人, 應該不至於和自己的名譽開玩笑.

只有關於醫藥方面的計畫,應該詳加審核,不可敷衍了事!

因為長久以來,這是一塊醫學暴力掩護,不易過濾,具有龐大利益的區域.

據說有院士在這一區扮演首爾大學黃禹錫( Hwang Woo-Suk)教授的角色

「違反醫學倫理」、「違法」、「說謊」,

甚至於超過納粹的粗暴作為,

明知紙包不住火,為了個人名譽,置國家名譽於不顧,

 甚至為後代研究者做錯誤的示範,其危害甚為嚴重!

應詳加處理!

同時有必要提倡研究倫理的觀念,

      在以探求真理為本然使命的研究社會,

      ,科學的本質是以正直和誠實為基礎，

      不應對科學成果抱持過度的幻想, 而浪費了人力和物力資源去創造泡沫現象

      新新聞周刊982期Page90-91黃禹錫與他的贗品科學, 劉士永觀點更提到

          [

         生物學家Gould 認為科學真理終有被發現的一天,

         但是科學研究者擺盪於社會期待,理論假設以及客觀事實之間,

         是如何的被動與無知. 或許科學研究的終極目的確實在於呈現或利用客觀的事實,

         但是研究者如何選擇假設,形成理論,則往往受到整體社會期待以及文化偏見高度的干擾]

      科學的進步是知識的累積.

      當知識的累積,到了一定的程度.

      水到渠成,自然花葉茂密.

      千萬不可和浮士德談交易,犧牲良心, 破壞倫理道德,偃苗助長去做研究,

      遺臭萬年!

"Puma" <good999...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:drto7c$set$6...@netnews.hinet.net...

在南韓首爾大學黃禹錫( Hwang Woo-Suk)教授事件中

黃禹錫( Hwang Woo-Suk)以金錢取得研究員的卵子，涉及「違反醫學倫理」、「違法」

、「說謊」

    1.[黃禹錫( Hwang Woo-Suk)所犯的錯誤是損害科學基礎的嚴重行為。 ]

    2.【大紀元12月23日報導】（中央社記者姜遠珍首爾二十三日專電）

    盧貞惠指出[真實性是科學研究的重要基礎，黃禹錫教授捏造研究數據等，嚴重違反科

    學研究的基本倫理]

    3.【中華日報編譯中心／十一日綜合外電報導《2006/01/11 18:01》

       首爾大學校長：黃禹錫學術犯罪將嚴厲懲戒
    南韓國立首爾大學校長鄭雲燦指出，

    a. 此次黃禹錫教授事件，在以探求真理為本然使命的大學社會是一種根本就無法饒恕的

        學術犯罪行為.    
    b. **[科學是以正直和誠實為基礎，不應對科學成果抱持過度的幻想。

      而浪費了人力和物力資源去創造泡沫現象，身為研究者務必時時刻刻深深自我反省。]** 】

 

   綜合新華社、中國日報報道2005-12-30 18:10:00 來稿

     黃禹錫( Hwang Woo-Suk)教授事件中  ,  韓國人民的反應:

    1.  南韓天主教樞機主教金壽煥激動落淚地說，「這讓韓國人在世人面前抬不起頭」。

         全韓國人驚愕傷心地瞪著電視上黃禹錫的臉，不敢相信這是真的。
    2.   韓國天主教大學醫學院教授吳日恆說。

        [ 這是韓國科技界悲哀的一天。]

反觀台灣,竟然有研究者為了獲得研究對象,不惜迫害一個善良的家庭.

甚至於睜眼說瞎話,指一個正常人無法為自己作主,

這樣一個人----->罔顧天理, 人倫,法律,社會善良風俗.

比黃禹錫( Hwang Woo-Suk)更糟糕!

這個人竟然還是一個老院士!

這麼老了,還用骯髒齷齪的手段作研究!

讓人感覺, 這樣一個人是否腦筋有問題?

難道求名就可以犧牲倫理道德嗎?

須知,所有的醫學研究,都應該以患者的利益做第一考量,

稍有不利於患者就應停止.

更重要的是告知同意,

如果得不到就不應執行.

豈可背地裏,以欺瞞的手段,把被試者安上一個精神病的標籤,

並強迫所謂的監護人同意呢?

身為研究者最重要的特質,正直和誠實何在?

誰敢相信一個不正直和誠實的人所作的研究成果呢?

李遠哲院長應該出來清理門戶.

因為這絕非個案,

已經積非成是,積重難返了.

請看中國時報2006年1月23日A1版,以及中國時報2006年1月23日A10版.

中央研究院生物醫學研究所幹的好事----先斬後奏

(Do they feel shameful? or unlucky to be noticed?)

所有和研究者相關的人也應該勇於舉發不法, 同流合污是陷害研究員,

使犯錯者像黃禹錫( Hwang Woo-Suk)一樣不可收拾

使國家的科技退步,社會失望,

 

請看一看康健雜誌

5 吞抗生素可消除胃潰瘍困擾，澳洲醫生拿下諾貝爾獎  [康健雜誌86期,文．張曉卉]

　以前，一般人都認為緊張的生活方式是消化性潰瘍的主因。但澳洲病理學家華倫與

微生物教授馬歇爾在1982年，從病人胃部切片培養出一種細菌，馬歇爾自己還吞下

一堆，果然出現脹氣、嘔吐等腸胃炎症狀，爾後證實八成的胃潰瘍、九成的十二指腸潰

瘍都是幽門螺旋桿菌在作怪。兩人締造消化醫學界近數十年最重大發現之一，

榮獲2005年諾貝爾醫學獎。

醫學獎的頌詞說：「拜馬歇爾、華倫開創性之賜，消化性潰瘍變成是一種短期可治癒的疾病。」

---

台灣人一定不希望激動落淚地說,「這讓台灣人在世人面前抬不起頭」

 

台灣人一定不希望全台灣人驚愕傷心地瞪著電視上的臉，不敢相信這是真的。

台灣人一定不希望說 ["這是台灣科技界悲哀的一天。"]

 

希望對於研究者有所啟示!

 

一個國家社會想要進步, 絕對不能有威權心態, 所謂的學長制正是最糟糕的示範.

正確的作法是謙虛, 虛懷若谷才可能接受新的事物.

"cougar" <dummycougar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dqtciv$jio$1...@netnews.hinet.net...

台灣的黃禹錫( Hwang Woo-Suk)據說住在台北市 X X 街XX號X樓,

是Member of Academia Sinica  .

他違反赫爾辛基宣言 --侵犯受試者的權益!

  絲毫也不重視研究倫理,

  甚至於應用地痞流氓迫害受試者,

真是斯文掃地!

他對研究倫理的處理方式,使每一個研究者蒙羞!

是一個法西斯主義者,

是集中營虐待囚犯的醫生的再現 !

到底怎麼了?

這個 Member!

真搞不懂 !

竟然還是Member of Academia Sinica !

---

赫爾辛基宣言

Initiated: 1964 17.C
Original: English
WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION DECLARATION OF HELSINKI
Ethical Principles
for
Medical Research Involving Human Subjects
Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly
Helsinki, Finland, June 1964
and amended by the
29th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975
35th WMA General Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983
41st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989
48th WMA General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996
and the
52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The World Medical Association has developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of
ethical principles to provide guidance to physicians and other participants in medical research
involving human subjects. Medical research involving human subjects includes research on
identifiable human material or identifiable data.
2. It is the duty of the physician to promote and safeguard the health of the people. The
physician’s knowledge and conscience are dedicated to the fulfillment of this duty.
3. The Declaration of Geneva of the World Medical Association binds the physician with the
words, "The health of my patient will be my first consideration," and the International Code of
Medical Ethics declares that, "A physician shall act only in the patient's interest when providing
medical care which might have the effect of weakening the physical and mental condition of the
patient."
4. Medical progress is based on research which ultimately must rest in part on experimentation
involving human subjects.
5. In medical research on human subjects, considerations related to the well-being of the human
subject should take precedence over the interests of science and society.
6. The primary purpose of medical research involving human subjects is to improve prophylactic,
diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and the understanding of the aetiology and pathogenesis
of disease. Even the best proven prophylactic, diagnostic, and therapeutic methods must
17.C 2
continuously be challenged through research for their effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility and
quality.
7. In current medical practice and in medical research, most prophylactic, diagnostic and
therapeutic procedures involve risks and burdens.
8. Medical research is subject to ethical standards that promote respect for all human beings and
protect their health and rights. Some research populations are vulnerable and need special
protection. The particular needs of the economically and medically disadvantaged must be
recognized. Special attention is also required for those who cannot give or refuse consent for
themselves, for those who may be subject to giving consent under duress, for those who will
not benefit personally from the research and for those for whom the research is combined with
care.
9. Research Investigators should be aware of the ethical, legal and regulatory requirements for
research on human subjects in their own countries as well as applicable international
requirements. No national ethical, legal or regulatory requirement should be allowed to reduce
or eliminate any of the protections for human subjects set forth in this Declaration.
B. BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR ALL MEDICAL RESEARCH
10. It is the duty of the physician in medical research to protect the life, health, privacy, and dignity
of the human subject.
11. 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.
12. Appropriate caution must be exercised in the conduct of research which may affect the
environment, and the welfare of animals used for research must be respected.
13. The design and performance of each experimental procedure involving human subjects should
be clearly formulated in an experimental protocol. This protocol should be submitted for
consideration, comment, guidance, and where appropriate, approval to a specially appointed
ethical review committee, which must be independent of the investigator, the sponsor or any
other kind of undue influence. This independent committee should be in conformity with the
laws and regulations of the country in which the research experiment is performed. The
committee has the right to monitor ongoing trials. The researcher has the obligation to provide
monitoring information to the committee, especially any serious adverse events. The researcher
should also submit to the committee, for review, information regarding funding, sponsors,
institutional affiliations, other potential conflicts of interest and incentives for subjects.
14. The research protocol should always contain a statement of the ethical considerations involved
and should indicate that there is compliance with the principles enunciated in this Declaration.
17.C 3
15. Medical research involving human subjects should be conducted only by scientifically qualified
persons and under the supervision of a clinically competent medical person. The responsibility
for the human subject must always rest with a medically qualified person and never rest on the
subject of the research, even though the subject has given consent.
16. Every medical research project involving human subjects should be preceded by careful
assessment of predictable risks and burdens in comparison with foreseeable benefits to the
subject or to others. This does not preclude the participation of healthy volunteers in medical
research. The design of all studies should be publicly available.
17. Physicians should abstain from engaging in research projects involving human subjects unless
they are confident that the risks involved have been adequately assessed and can be
satisfactorily managed. Physicians should cease any investigation if the risks are found to
outweigh the potential benefits or if there is conclusive proof of positive and beneficial results.
18. Medical research involving human subjects should only be conducted if the importance of the
objective outweighs the inherent risks and burdens to the subject. This is especially important
when the human subjects are healthy volunteers.
19. Medical research is only justified if there is a reasonable likelihood that the populations in
which the research is carried out stand to benefit from the results of the research.
20. The subjects must be volunteers and informed participants in the research project.
21. The right of research subjects to safeguard their integrity must always be respected. Every
precaution should be taken to respect the privacy of the subject, the confidentiality of the
patient’s information and to minimize the impact of the study on the subject's physical and
mental integrity and on the personality of the subject.
22. In any research on human beings, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the
aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of
the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it
may entail. The subject should be informed of the right to abstain from participation in the
study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. After ensuring that the
subject has understood the information, the physician should then obtain the subject's freelygiven
informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be obtained in writing, the
non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.
23. When obtaining informed consent for the research project the physician should be particularly
cautious if the subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under
duress. In that case the informed consent should be obtained by a well-informed physician
who is not engaged in the investigation and who is completely independent of this relationship.
17.C 4
24. For a research subject who is legally incompetent, physically or mentally incapable of giving
consent or is a legally incompetent minor, the investigator must obtain informed consent from
the legally authorized representative in accordance with applicable law. These groups should
not be included in research unless the research is necessary to promote the health of the
population represented and this research cannot instead be performed on legally competent
persons.
25. When a subject deemed legally incompetent, such as a minor child, is able to give assent to
decisions about participation in research, the investigator must obtain that assent in addition to
the consent of the legally authorized representative.
26. Research on individuals from whom it is not possible to obtain consent, including proxy or
advance consent, should be done only if the physical/mental condition that prevents obtaining
informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research population. The specific reasons
for involving research subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give informed
consent should be stated in the experimental protocol for consideration and approval of the
review committee. The protocol should state that consent to remain in the research should be
obtained as soon as possible from the individual or a legally authorized surrogate.
27. Both authors and publishers have ethical obligations. In publication of the results of research,
the investigators are obliged to preserve the accuracy of the results. Negative as well as
positive results should be published or otherwise publicly available. Sources of funding,
institutional affiliations and any possible conflicts of interest should be declared in the
publication. Reports of experimentation not in accordance with the principles laid down in this
Declaration should not be accepted for publication.
C. ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH COMBINED WITH
MEDICAL CARE
28. The physician may combine medical research with medical care, only to the extent that the
research is justified by its potential prophylactic, diagnostic or therapeutic value. When medical
research is combined with medical care, additional standards apply to protect the patients who
are research subjects.
29. The benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new method should be tested against those
of the best current prophylactic, diagnostic, and therapeutic methods. This does not exclude
the use of placebo, or no treatment, in studies where no proven prophylactic, diagnostic or
therapeutic method exists.
30. At the conclusion of the study, every patient entered into the study should be assured of access
to the best proven prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic methods identified by the study.
31. The physician should fully inform the patient which aspects of the care are related to the
research. The refusal of a patient to participate in a study must never interfere with the patientphysician
relationship.
17.C 5
32. In the treatment of a patient, where proven prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic methods
do not exist or have been ineffective, the physician, with informed consent from the patient,
must be free to use unproven or new prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic measures, if in
the physician’s judgement it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating
suffering. Where possible, these measures should be made the object of research, designed to
evaluate their safety and efficacy. In all cases, new information should be recorded and, where
appropriate, published. The other relevant guidelines of this Declaration should be followed.
§ § §
7.10.2000 09h14