Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2010 Aug 18:9:50.
doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-9-50.

The ethics of human volunteer studies involving experimental exposure to pesticides: unanswered dilemmas

Affiliations
Review

The ethics of human volunteer studies involving experimental exposure to pesticides: unanswered dilemmas

Leslie London et al. Environ Health. .

Abstract

The controversy about the use of data from human volunteer studies involving experimental exposure to pesticides as part of regulatory risk assessment has been widely discussed, but the complex and interrelated scientific and ethical issues remain largely unresolved. This discussion paper, generated by authors who comprised a workgroup of the ICOH Scientific Committee on Rural Health, reviews the use of human experimental studies in regulatory risk assessment for pesticides with a view to advancing the debate as to when, if ever, such studies might be ethically justifiable. The discussion is based on three elements: (a) a review of discussion papers on the topic of human testing of pesticides and the positions adopted by regulatory agencies in developed countries; (b) an analysis of published and unpublished studies involving human testing with pesticides, both in the peer-reviewed literature and in the JMPR database; and (c) application of an ethical analysis to the problem. The paper identifies areas of agreement which include general principles that may provide a starting point on which to base criteria for judgements as to the ethical acceptability of such studies. However, the paper also highlights ongoing unresolved differences of opinion inherent in ethical analysis of contentious issues, which we propose should form a starting point for further debate and the development of guidelines to achieve better resolution of this matter.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Landrigan PJ, McCally M, Oleskey C. Ethics of pesticide testing in humans. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:A750. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McNeil JJ, Meaklim J. Ethics of Pesticide Testing: Response. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:A750. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sass JB, Needleman HL. Industry testing of toxic pesticides on human subjects concluded "no effect", despite the evidence. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112(3):A150–1. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chart IS, Manley A, Youngren SH. Study Criticisms Unjustified. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112(3):A151–2. doi: 10.1289/ehp.112-a151. - DOI
    1. Charnley G, Patterson J. Review of procedures for protecting human subjects in recent clinical studies of pesticides. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2003;38:210–23. doi: 10.1016/S0273-2300(03)00093-X. - DOI - PubMed