HOME | SUBSCRIBE | SEARCH | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES |

COLLECTIONS | HELP

Institution: Argentina | Sign In as Individual | Contact Subscription Administrator at Your Institution | FAQ

Previous Volume 337:847-849 September 18, 1997 Number 12 Next

The Ethics of Clinical Research in the Third

World
An essential ethical condition for a randomized clinical
trial comparing two treatments for a disease is that there
be no good reason for thinking one is better than the
other.1,2 Usually, investigators hope and even expect that
the new treatment will be better, but there should not be Letters
solid evidence one way or the other. If there is, not only
would the trial be scientifically redundant, but the
investigators would be guilty of knowingly giving
inferior treatment to some participants in the trial. The
necessity for investigators to be in this state of
equipoise2 applies to placebo-controlled trials, as well.
Only when there is no known effective treatment is it Add to Personal Archive
ethical to compare a potential new treatment with a Add to Citation Manager
placebo. When effective treatment exists, a placebo may Notify a Friend
not be used. Instead, subjects in the control group of the
E-mail When Cited
study must receive the best known treatment.
Investigators are responsible for all subjects enrolled in
a trial, not just some of them, and the goals of the
research are always secondary to the well-being of the
participants. Those requirements are made clear in the
Declaration of Helsinki of the World Health
Organization (WHO), which is widely regarded as Find Similar Articles
providing the fundamental guiding principles of
PubMed Citation
research involving human subjects.3 It states, "In
research on man [sic], the interest of science and society
should never take precedence over considerations
related to the wellbeing of the subject," and "In any medical study, every patient —
including those of a control group, if any — should be assured of the best proven
diagnostic and therapeutic method."
One reason ethical codes are unequivocal about investigators' primary obligation to care
for the human subjects of their research is the strong temptation to subordinate the
subjects' welfare to the objectives of the study. That is particularly likely when the
research question is extremely important and the answer would probably improve the
care of future patients substantially. In those circumstances, it is sometimes argued
explicitly that obtaining a rapid, unambiguous answer to the research question is the
primary ethical obligation. With the most altruistic of motives, then, researchers may
find themselves slipping across a line that prohibits treating human subjects as means to
an end. When that line is crossed, there is very little left to protect patients from a
callous disregard of their welfare for the sake of research goals. Even informed consent,
important though it is, is not protection enough, because of the asymmetry in knowledge
and authority between researchers and their subjects. And approval by an institutional
review board, though also important, is highly variable in its responsiveness to patients'
interests when they conflict with the interests of researchers.

A textbook example of unethical research is the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis.4

In that study, which was sponsored by the U.S. Public Health Service and lasted from
1932 to 1972, 412 poor African-American men with untreated syphilis were followed
and compared with 204 men free of the disease to determine the natural history of
syphilis. Although there was no very good treatment available at the time the study
began (heavy metals were the standard treatment), the research continued even after
penicillin became widely available and was known to be highly effective against
syphilis. The study was not terminated until it came to the attention of a reporter and the
outrage provoked by front-page stories in the Washington Star and New York Times
embarrassed the Nixon administration into calling a halt to it.5 The ethical violations
were multiple: Subjects did not provide informed consent (indeed, they were
deliberately deceived); they were denied the best known treatment; and the study was
continued even after highly effective treatment became available. And what were the
arguments in favor of the Tuskegee study? That these poor African-American men
probably would not have been treated anyway, so the investigators were merely
observing what would have happened if there were no study; and that the study was
important (a "never-to-be-repeated opportunity," said one physician after penicillin
became available).6 Ethical concern was even stood on its head when it was suggested
that not only was the information valuable, but it was especially so for people like the
subjects — an impoverished rural population with a very high rate of untreated syphilis.
The only lament seemed to be that many of the subjects inadvertently received treatment
by other doctors.

Some of these issues are raised by Lurie and Wolfe elsewhere in this issue of the
Journal. They discuss the ethics of ongoing trials in the Third World of regimens to
prevent the vertical transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection.7
All except one of the trials employ placebo-treated control groups, despite the fact that
zidovudine has already been clearly shown to cut the rate of vertical transmission
greatly and is now recommended in the United States for all HIV-infected pregnant
women. The justifications are reminiscent of those for the Tuskegee study: Women in
the Third World would not receive antiretroviral treatment anyway, so the investigators
are simply observing what would happen to the subjects' infants if there were no study.
And a placebo-controlled study is the fastest, most efficient way to obtain unambiguous
information that will be of greatest value in the Third World. Thus, in response to
protests from Wolfe and others to the secretary of Health and Human Services, the
directors of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) — the organizations sponsoring the studies — argued, "It is an
unfortunate fact that the current standard of perinatal care for the HIV-infected pregnant
women in the sites of the studies does not include any HIV prophylactic intervention at
all," and the inclusion of placebo controls "will result in the most rapid, accurate, and
reliable answer to the question of the value of the intervention being studied compared
to the local standard of care."8

Also in this issue of the Journal, Whalen et al. report the results of a clinical trial in
Uganda of various regimens of prophylaxis against tuberculosis in HIV-infected adults,
most of whom had positive tuberculin skin tests.9 This study, too, employed a placebo-
treated control group, and in some ways it is analogous to the studies criticized by Lurie
and Wolfe. In the United States it would probably be impossible to carry out such a
study, because of long-standing official recommendations that HIV-infected persons
with positive tuberculin skin tests receive prophylaxis against tuberculosis. The first was
issued in 1990 by the CDC's Advisory Committee for Elimination of Tuberculosis.10 It
stated that tuberculin-test-positive persons with HIV infection "should be considered
candidates for preventive therapy." Three years later, the recommendation was reiterated
more strongly in a joint statement by the American Thoracic Society and the CDC, in
collaboration with the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American
Academy of Pediatrics.11 According to this statement, ". . . the identification of persons
with dual infection and the administration of preventive therapy to these persons is of
great importance." However, some believe that these recommendations were premature,
since they were based largely on the success of prophylaxis in HIV-negative persons.12

Whether the study by Whalen et al. was ethical depends, in my view, entirely on the
strength of the preexisting evidence. Only if there was genuine doubt about the benefits
of prophylaxis would a placebo group be ethically justified. This is not the place to
review the scientific evidence, some of which is discussed in the editorial of Msamanga
and Fawzi elsewhere in this issue.13 Suffice it to say that the case is debatable.
Msamanga and Fawzi conclude that "future studies should not include a placebo group,
since preventive therapy should be considered the standard of care." I agree. The
difficult question is whether there should have been a placebo group in the first place.

Although I believe an argument can be made that a placebo-controlled trial was ethically
justifiable because it was still uncertain whether prophylaxis would work, it should not
be argued that it was ethical because no prophylaxis is the "local standard of care" in
sub-Saharan Africa. For reasons discussed by Lurie and Wolfe, that reasoning is badly
flawed.7 As mentioned earlier, the Declaration of Helsinki requires control groups to
receive the "best" current treatment, not the local one. The shift in wording between
"best" and "local" may be slight, but the implications are profound. Acceptance of this
ethical relativism could result in widespread exploitation of vulnerable Third World
populations for research programs that could not be carried out in the sponsoring
country.14 Furthermore, it directly contradicts the Department of Health and Human
Services' own regulations governing U.S.-sponsored research in foreign countries,15 as
well as joint guidelines for research in the Third World issued by WHO and the Council
for International Organizations of Medical Sciences,16 which require that human
subjects receive protection at least equivalent to that in the sponsoring country. The fact
that Whalen et al. offered isoniazid to the placebo group when it was found superior to
placebo indicates that they were aware of their responsibility to all the subjects in the
trial.

The Journal has taken the position that it will not publish reports of unethical research,
regardless of their scientific merit.14,17 After deliberating at length about the study by
Whalen at al., the editors concluded that publication was ethically justified, although
there remain differences among us. The fact that the subjects gave informed consent and
the study was approved by the institutional review board at the University Hospitals of
Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University and by the Ugandan National AIDS
Research Subcommittee certainly supported our decision but did not allay all our
misgivings. It is still important to determine whether clinical studies are consistent with
preexisting, widely accepted ethical guidelines, such as the Declaration of Helsinki, and
with federal regulations, since they cannot be influenced by pressures specific to a
particular study.

Quite apart from the merits of the study by Whalen et al., there is a larger issue. There
appears to be a general retreat from the clear principles enunciated in the Nuremberg
Code and the Declaration of Helsinki as applied to research in the Third World. Why is
that? Is it because the "local standard of care" is different? I don't think so. In my view,
that is merely a self-serving justification after the fact. Is it because diseases and their
treatments are very different in the Third World, so that information gained in the
industrialized world has no relevance and we have to start from scratch? That, too,
seems an unlikely explanation, although here again it is often offered as a justification.
Sometimes there may be relevant differences between populations, but that cannot be
assumed. Unless there are specific indications to the contrary, the safest and most
reasonable position is that people everywhere are likely to respond similarly to the same
treatment.

I think we have to look elsewhere for the real reasons. One of them may be a slavish
adherence to the tenets of clinical trials. According to these, all trials should be
randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled, if at all possible. That rigidity may
explain the NIH's pressure on Marc Lallemant to include a placebo group in his study,
as described by Lurie and Wolfe.7 Sometimes journals are blamed for the problem,
because they are thought to demand strict conformity to the standard methods. That is
not true, at least not at this journal. We do not want a scientifically neat study if it is
ethically flawed, but like Lurie and Wolfe we believe that in many cases it is possible,
with a little ingenuity, to have both scientific and ethical rigor.

The retreat from ethical principles may also be explained by some of the exigencies of
doing clinical research in an increasingly regulated and competitive environment.
Research in the Third World looks relatively attractive as it becomes better funded and
regulations at home become more restrictive. Despite the existence of codes requiring
that human subjects receive at least the same protection abroad as at home, they are still
honored partly in the breach. The fact remains that many studies are done in the Third
World that simply could not be done in the countries sponsoring the work. Clinical trials
have become a big business, with many of the same imperatives. To survive, it is
necessary to get the work done as quickly as possible, with a minimum of obstacles.
When these considerations prevail, it seems as if we have not come very far from
Tuskegee after all. Those of us in the research community need to redouble our
commitment to the highest ethical standards, no matter where the research is conducted,
and sponsoring agencies need to enforce those standards, not undercut them.

Marcia Angell, M.D.

References

1. Angell M. Patients' preferences in randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med

1984;310:1385-1387.[Medline]

2. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med

1987;317:141-145.[Abstract]

3. Declaration of Helsinki IV, 41st World Medical Assembly, Hong Kong,

September 1989. In: Annas GJ, Grodin MA, eds. The Nazi doctors and the
Nuremberg Code: human rights in human experimentation. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1992:339-42.

4. Twenty years after: the legacy of the Tuskegee syphilis study. Hastings Cent
Rep 1992;22:29-40.[Medline]

5. Caplan AL. When evil intrudes. Hastings Cent Rep 1992;22:29-32.[Medline]

6. The development of consent requirements in research ethics. In: Faden RR,

Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1986:151-99.

7. Lurie P, Wolfe SM. Unethical trials of interventions to reduce perinatal

transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus in developing countries. N
Engl J Med 1997;337:853-856.[Full Text]

8. The conduct of clinical trials of maternal–infant transmission of HIV supported

by the United States Department of Health and Human Services in developing
countries. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, July
1997.

9. Whalen CC, Johnson JL, Okwera A, et al. A trial of three regimens to prevent
tuberculosis in Ugandan adults infected with the human immunodeficiency
virus. N Engl J Med 1997;337:801-808.[Abstract/Full Text]

10. The use of preventive therapy for tuberculous infection in the United States:
recommendations of the Advisory Committee for Elimination of Tuberculosis.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1990;39:9-12.[Medline]

11. Bass JB Jr, Farer LS, Hopewell PC, et al. Treatment of tuberculosis and
tuberculosis infection in adults and children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med
1994;149:1359-1374.[Abstract]
12. De Cock KM, Grant A, Porter JD. Preventive therapy for tuberculosis in HIV-
infected persons: international recommendations, research, and practice. Lancet
1995;345:833-836.[CrossRef][Medline] HTU UTH UTH

13. Msamanga GI, Fawzi WW. The double burden of HIV infection and
tuberculosis in sub-Saharan Africa. N Engl J Med 1997;337:849-851.[Full Text] HTU UTH

14. Angell M. Ethical imperialism? Ethics in international collaborative clinical

research. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1081-1083.[Medline] HTU UTH

15. Protection of human subjects, 45 CFR § 46 (1996).

16. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human

subjects. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences,
1993.

17. Angell M. The Nazi hypothermia experiments and unethical research today. N
Engl J Med 1990;322:1462-1464.[Medline] HTU UTH

Related Letters:
T T

Questions about a Placebo-Controlled Trial of

TH

Preventive Therapy for Tuberculosis in HIV-

Letters
Infected Ugandans TH
HT TH

Desvarieux M., Turner M. T., Whalen C. C.,

Johnson J. L., Mugerwa R. D., Ellner J. J.,
Msamanga G., Angell M.
Extract | Full Text
HTU UTH HTU UTH

N Engl J Med 1998; 338:841-843, Mar 19, 1998.

Correspondence HT Add to Personal Archive TH

Add to Citation Manager

This article has been cited by other
HT TH

Notify a Friend
HT TH

articles: T
E-mail When Cited
HT TH

• Buchanan, D. R., Miller, F. G. (2006). Justice

and Fairness in the Kennedy Krieger Institute
Lead Paint Study: the Ethics of Public Health
Research on Less Expensive, Less Effective
Interventions. Am J Public Health 96: 781-787 T T

[Abstract] [Full Text]

HTU UTH HTU
Find Similar Articles
UTH
HT TH

• Fischer, B. A IV (2006). A Summary of PubMed Citation HT TH

Important Documents in the Field of Research

Ethics. Schizophr Bull 32: 69-80 [Abstract] [Full
T T HTU UTH HTU

Text] UTH

• Shaffer, D N, Yebei, V N, Ballidawa, J B, Sidle, J E, Greene, J Y, Meslin, E M,

Kimaiyo, S J N, Tierney, W M (2006). Equitable treatment for HIV/AIDS
clinical trial participants: a focus group study of patients, clinician researchers,
and administrators in western Kenya. J Med Ethics 32: 55-60 [Abstract] [Full T T HTU UTH HTU

Text] UTH

• Riessman, C. K. (2005). Exporting ethics: a narrative about narrative research in

South India. Health (London) 9: 473-490 [Abstract]
T T HTU UTH

• Milstien, J., Cash, R. A., Wecker, J., Wikler, D. (2005). Development Of

Priority Vaccines For Disease-Endemic Countries: Risk And Benefit. Health Aff T T

24: 718-728 [Abstract] [Full Text]HTU UTH HTU UTH

• Stern, A. M., Markel, H. (2005). The History Of Vaccines And Immunization:

Familiar Patterns, New Challenges. Health Aff 24: 611-621 [Abstract] [Full T T HTU UTH HTU

Text] UTH

• Harris, J. (2005). Scientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics 31: 242-248 T T

[Full Text]
HTU UTH

• (1997). Tuberculosis Prophylaxis in Africa and Clinical Trials in Developing

Countries. jwacc 1997: 5-5 [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH

• Bhutta, Z. (2004). Standards of care in research. BMJ 329: 1114-1115 [Full T T HTU

Text] UTH

• Kent, D. M., Fendrick, A. M., Langa, K. M. (2004). New and Dis-Improved: On

the Evaluation and Use of Less Effective, Less Expensive Medical
Interventions. Med Decis Making 24: 281-286 [Abstract]
T T HTU UTH

• Kent, D. M., Mwamburi, D. M., Bennish, M. L., Kupelnick, B., Ioannidis, J. P.

A. (2004). Clinical Trials in Sub-Saharan Africa and Established Standards of
Care: A Systematic Review of HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Trials. JAMA T T

292: 237-242 [Abstract] [Full Text] HTU UTH HTU UTH

• Mill, J. E., Ogilvie, L. D. (2002). Ethical Decision Making in International

Nursing Research. Qual Health Res 12: 807-815 [Abstract] T T HTU UTH

• Wendler, D., Emanuel, E. J., Lie, R. K. (2004). The Standard of Care Debate:
Can Research in Developing Countries Be Both Ethical and Responsive to
Those Countries' Health Needs?. Am J Public Health 94: 923-928 [Abstract] T T HTU UTH

[Full Text]
HTU UTH

• McMillan, J R, Conlon, C (2004). The ethics of research related to health care in

developing countries. J Med Ethics 30: 204-206 [Abstract] [Full Text] T T HTU UTH HTU UTH

• Lie, R K, Emanuel, E, Grady, C, Wendler, D (2004). The standard of care

debate: the Declaration of Helsinki versus the international consensus opinion. J T

Med Ethics 30: 190-193 [Abstract] [Full Text]

T HTU UTH HTU UTH

• Miller, F. G., Silverman, H. J. (2004). The Ethical Relevance of the Standard of

Care in the Design of Clinical Trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 169: 562-564 T T

[Full Text]
HTU UTH

• Hyder, A A, Wali, S A, Khan, A N, Teoh, N B, Kass, N E, Dawson, L (2004).

Ethical review of health research: a perspective from developing country
researchers. J Med Ethics 30: 68-72 [Abstract] [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH HTU UTH

• Levine, C., Faden, R., Grady, C., Hammerschmidt, D., Eckenwiler, L.,
Sugarman, J., on behalf of the Consortium to Examine Clinical Re, (2004).
"Special Scrutiny": A Targeted Form of Research Protocol Review. Ann Intern T

Med 140: 220-223 [Abstract] [Full Text]

T HTU UTH HTU UTH

• Ellenberg, S. S., Temple, R. (2000). Placebo-Controlled Trials and Active-

Control Trials in the Evaluation of New Treatments. Part 2: Practical Issues and
Specific Cases. Ann Intern Med 133: 464-470 [Abstract] [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH HTU UTH

• Temple, R., Ellenberg, S. S. (2000). Placebo-Controlled Trials and Active-

Control Trials in the Evaluation of New Treatments. Part 1: Ethical and
Scientific Issues. Ann Intern Med 133: 455-463 [Abstract] [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH HTU UTH
• Wong, T Y, Tan, D T (2003). The SERI-ARVO Meeting and future challenges
of ophthalmic research in Asia. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 87: 379-380 [Full Text] T T HTU UTH

• Karlawish, J. H. T., Whitehouse, P. J. (1998). Is the Placebo Control Obsolete in

a World After Donepezil and Vitamin E?. Arch Neurol 55: 1420-1424 [Abstract] T T HTU UTH

[Full Text]
HTU UTH

• Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., Grady, C. (2000). What Makes Clinical Research
Ethical?. JAMA 283: 2701-2711 [Abstract] [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH HTU UTH

• Preston, R. A., Materson, B. J., Reda, D. J., Williams, D. W. (2000). Placebo-

Associated Blood Pressure Response and Adverse Effects in the Treatment of
Hypertension: Observations From a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative
Study. Arch Intern Med 160: 1449-1454 [Abstract] [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH HTU UTH

• White, R. M. (2000). Unraveling the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis.

Arch Intern Med 160: 585-598 [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH

• Carpenter, W. T. Jr., Appelbaum, P. S., Levine, R. J. (2003). The Declaration of

Helsinki and Clinical Trials: A Focus on Placebo-Controlled Trials in
Schizophrenia. Am. J. Psychiatry 160: 356-362 [Abstract] [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH HTU UTH

• Fleischer, T. (2002). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. JAMA 287: 1582-1583 T T

[Full Text]
HTU UTH

• Caballero, B. (2002). Ethical issues for collaborative research in developing

countries. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 76: 717-720 [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH

• Zlotkin, S., Arthur, P. (2002). Reply to NW Solomons and K Schumann. Am. J. T

Clin. Nutr. 76: 693-694 [Full Text]

T HTU UTH

• London, L. (2002). Ethical Oversight of Public Health Research: Can Rules and
IRBs Make a Difference in Developing Countries?. Am J Public Health 92: T T

1079-1084 [Abstract] [Full Text] HTU UTH HTU UTH

• Zumla, A., Costello, A. (2002). Ethics of healthcare research in developing

countries. J R Soc Med 95: 275-276 [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH

• Roth, D. E. (2001). Humanitarian aid and medical research: an illusion of

dichotomy in international health. Can Med Assoc J 164: 1862-1864 [Full Text] T T HTU UTH

• LEVINE, R. J. (2000). Some Recent Developments in the International

Guidelines on the Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects. Annals NYAS T

Online 918: 170-178 [Abstract] [Full Text]

T HTU UTH HTU UTH

• CAPLAN, L R (2001). Evidence based medicine: concerns of a clinical

neurologist. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 71: 569-574 [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH

• Shapiro, H. T., Meslin, E. M. (2001). Ethical Issues in the Design and Conduct
of Clinical Trials in Developing Countries. NEJM 345: 139-142 [Full Text] T T HTU UTH

• Varmus, H., Satcher, D. (1997). Ethical Complexities of Conducting Research in

Developing Countries. NEJM 337: 1003-1005 [Full Text] T T HTU UTH

• McIntosh, K. (1998). Short (And Shorter) Courses of Zidovudine. NEJM 339: T T

1467-1468 [Full Text] HTU UTH

• Desvarieux, M., Turner, M. T., Whalen, C. C., Johnson, J. L., Mugerwa, R. D.,
Ellner, J. J., Msamanga, G., Angell, M. (1998). Questions about a Placebo-
Controlled Trial of Preventive Therapy for Tuberculosis in HIV-Infected
Ugandans. NEJM 338: 841-843 [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH

• Kassirer, J. P. (1999). Should Medical Journals Try to Influence Political

Debates?. NEJM 340: 466-467 [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH

• Macklin, R. (1999). The Ethical Problems with Sham Surgery in Clinical

Research. NEJM 341: 992-996 [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH
• Brennan, T. A. (1999). Proposed Revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki -- Will
They Weaken the Ethical Principles Underlying Human Research?. NEJM 341: T T

527-531 [Full Text] HTU UTH

• Levine, R. J. (1999). The Need to Revise the Declaration of Helsinki. NEJM T T

341: 531-534 [Full Text] HTU UTH

• Angell, M. (2000). Investigators' Responsibilities for Human Subjects in

Developing Countries. NEJM 342: 967-969 [Full Text] T T HTU UTH

• Misbin, R. I. (1999). Comment on the Ethics of Placebo-Controlled Trials in

Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84: 823-823 T T

[Full Text]
HTU UTH

• Benatar, S. R, Singer, P. A (2000). A new look at international research ethics.

BMJ 321: 824-826 [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH

• Costello, A., Zumla, A. (2000). Moving to research partnerships in developing

countries. BMJ 321: 827-829 [Full Text] T T HTU UTH

• Weijer, C. (2000). The future of research into rotavirus vaccine. BMJ 321: 525- T T

526 [Full Text]

HTU UTH

• Rothman, K. J, Michels, K. B, Baum, M. (2000). For and against: Declaration of

Helsinki should be strengthened FOR AGAINST Rothman and Michels' riposte.
BMJ 321: 442-445 [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH

• Edejer, T. T.-T. (1999). North-South research partnerships: the ethics of carrying

out research in developing countries. BMJ 319: 438-441 [Full Text] T T HTU UTH

• GOMOLLON, F (1998). Guidance for trials in Helicobacter pylori infection.

Gut 43: 728d-728 [Full Text]
T T HTU UTH

• Edi-Osagie, E C O, Edi-Osagie, N E, Lurie, P., Wolfe, S. M, Burdon, J., Baraza,

R., Landray, M. J, Halsey, N. A, Sommer, A., Black, R. E, Godfrey-Faussett, P.,
Mwinga, A., Hosp, M., Baggaley, R., Quigley, M., Porter, J. (1998). Ethics and
international research. BMJ 316: 625a-625 [Full Text] T T HTU UTH

• Halsey, N. A, Sommer, A., Henderson, D. A, Black, R. E (1997). Ethics and

international research. BMJ 315: 965-966 [Full Text] T T HTU UTH

HOME
HT TH | SUBSCRIBE
HT TH | SEARCH
HT TH | CURRENT ISSUE
HT TH | PAST ISSUES
HT TH |
COLLECTIONS
HT TH | HELP
HT TH

Comments and questions? Please contact us. HTU UTH

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © HTU UTH

2006 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

HTU UTH