Testing of hazardous chemicals on people.

I am flabergasted! The EPA is reviewing tests of pesticides on human subjects that were performed without informed consent. The tests were carried out at major universities, paid for by the manufacturers. These were known hazardous chemicals (pesticides) that had been in use since WWI.

The fact that they outright lied to the subjects about how much was already known and the risks involved leaves me speechless. :eek:

It’s not like they were lying, it’s 100% true that you might experience “some irritation” when a chemical warfare agent is shot into your nose. No researcher should pay a college student $15/hr to participate in an experiment unless they are willing to be a participant as well. I wonder if these scientists would have shot this crap into themselves for a few bucks?

Also, let me give a shout out to Barbara Boxer who found a way to blame this on Bush. His ethics reduction ray is apparently working like a charm.

Well, while entities like the EPA (which sets the guidelines underwhich these experiments were conducted) often work largely independently of whatever Administration happens to be in power at the time, there are also occasions when specific Administration policy decisions or personnel appointments can have direct effects on the way these agencies work and the priorities they set.

If these experiments were carried out, as the article suggests, in the period 2002-2004, and if similarly dangerous experiments were not carried out before that, then it’s worth asking whether or not a change in EPA policy and/or a change in Administration policy was responsible for the conduct of these dangerous experiments.

Admittedly, there was nothing in that article apart from Boxer’s assertion to suggest that this episode can be blamed on the current Administation. I’d be interested to know whether she has any evidence to back up the claim, or whether it was merely political grandstanding.

The EPA doesn’t set the guidelines for human experimentation, NIH and FDA do to some extent, but the states are mandated to makelaw concerning informed consent and safety Clearly UCSD didn’t follow the Calif law.
The EPA is reviewing the data for possible future use. That strikes me as unethical at the very least.

From the linked article, if there’s a problem with the testing methodology, then the blame lies with those parties conducting the test, not the EPA, and not the Bush administration.

That sounds as though oversight is welcomed.

No, this proves you’re a gadfly asshat.