Skip to main content

Research Discrimination – Inadequately Tested Populations

  • Chapter
It's Great! Oops, No It Isn't
  • 1652 Accesses

The under-representation of any group in a research program amounts, not only to a decrease in study usefulness, it also represents a form of discrimination against the excluded groups. The neglected groups are deprived and disad-vantaged because the overall results from a clinical trial probably do not apply to them. The deprivation is especially focused on demographic attributes such as gender, age, ethnicity and cultural background. Based on these criteria, clinical trials have enlisted volunteers in disproportionate numbers for years and, as a result, their findings apply mainly to a single race (white), a single sex (male) and a single age group (21–55). Consequently, the under-represented groups are left in the dark about the value of new treatments that could help them and the risks they will face from taking recently introduced cannot be adequately understood. Although in recent years, important improvements have been made, the omission of these groups in the past reflects poorly on the medical research community and its passivity to remedy the problem. There is a continuing need to emphasize diversity in clinical trials. The medical research community should work with the FDA and Congress to come up with innovative ways to obtain that diversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Chapter 11 — Research Discrimination

Cited References

  1. Chalmers T. Ethical implications of rejecting patients for clinical trials. JAMA1990:263;825–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Groopman J. The pediatric gap. The New YorkerJan 10, 2005:32.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Peterson E, Lytle B, Biswas M, et al. Willingness to participate in cardiac trials. Am J Geriatr Cardiol2004:13;11–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ridker P, Cook N, Lee I, et al. A randomized trial of low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women. New Eng J Med2005:352;1293–1304.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rochon P, Berger P, Gordon M. The evolution of clinical trials: inclusion and representation. Can Med Assoc J1998:159;1373–1374.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sternberg S. A bitter pill for older patients; excluded from drug trials, the elderly face unknown risks. USA TodayMay 5, 2005:D1.

    Google Scholar 

General References

  1. Baker B. Assessing the risks, benefits of clinical trials. AARP Bull Online.http://www.aarp.org /bulletin/yourhealth/Articles/a2003-07-11-clinicaltrials.htmlJune 30, 2006.

  2. Blum A, Chalmers T. The Lugano statements on controlled clinical trials. J Int Med Res1987:15;2–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Caschetta M, Chavkin W, McGovern T. FDA policy on women in drug trialsNew Engl J Med1993:329;1815–1816.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Centerwatch. Clinical trials—a very human enterprise.http://www.centerwatch.com/patient/ifcn _ 01.html#Section5Feb 15, 2005.

  5. Christie B. Doctors revise declaration of Helsinki. Br Med J2000:321;913.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Food and Drug Administration. Drug research and children.http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/test-tubetopatient/children.htmlFeb 1, 2003. Food and Drug Administration. Medication and older people.http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/697_old.html Sept 15, 2003.

  7. Friedman M. Women and minorities guidance requirements. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Researchhttp://www.fda.gov/CDER/guidance/women.pdfJuly 20, 1998.

  8. Gauch R. Statistical methods for researchers made very simple. Lanham, MD: University Press of America 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Greeley A. Concern about AIDS in minority communities. Food and Drug Administration.http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_aids.htmlDec 15, 1995.

  10. Lowe C. Pediatrics: proper utilization of children as research subjects. Ann NY Acad Sci1970:169;337–344.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lurie P, Wolfe M. Unethical trials of interventions to reduce perinatal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus in developing countries. New Engl J Med1997:337;853–856.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mastroianni A, Faber R. Women and health research: ethical and legal issues of including women in clinical studies. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Merkatz R, Temple R, Sobel S, et al. Women in clinical trials of new drugs — a change in food and drug administration policy. New Engl J Med1993:329;292–296.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Merton V. The exclusion of pregnant, pregnable and once-pregnant people (a.k.a. women) from biomedical research. Am J Law Med1993:19;369–451.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Okie S. Minorities less likely to be in HIV trials. Study finds divide in treatment access. Washington PostMay 2, 2002:A3.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pickering T. Why is hypertension more common in African Americans?J Clin Hypertension2001:3;50–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Society for Women's Health Research. Sex difference in response to pharmaceuticals, tobacco and illicit drugs.http://www.womenshealthresearch.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hs_ facts _datAug 30, 2006.

  18. Stein R. A gap in knowledge about kids' medication. Washington PostNov 23, 2007:A1.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stolberg S. U.S. AIDS research in poor nations raises outcry on ethics. New York TimesSep 18, 1997:A1.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stotland N. Gender-based biology. Amer J Psychiat2001:158;2093–2094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Strom B, Melmon K, Miettinen O. Post-marketing studies of drug efficacy: why?Am J Med1985:78;475–480.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Studdert D, Brennan T. Clinical trials in developing countries: scientific and ethical issues. Med J Australia1998:169;545–548.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wenger N. Exclusion of the elderly and women from coronary trials: is their quality of care compromised?JAMA1992:268;1460–1461.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2009). Research Discrimination – Inadequately Tested Populations. In: It's Great! Oops, No It Isn't. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8907-7_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics