This chapter explores the role of ethical peer review at Cincinnati and shows that contemporary judgments of Eugene Saenger were highly contingent and affected by social and political forces. It follows the changing strategies that the local peer review committee adopted to evaluate Saenger's research proposals. It also demonstrates that the concerns of the peer review committee, combined with the changing interests of Saenger's coinvestigators, moved the program in a direction that embraced more overtly clinical goals. The Faculty Committee on Research (FCR) viewed its compact with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) more broadly than simply as providing an ethical assessment. The focus of the FCR's ethical assessment on the content of the consent statement, no doubt, played some role in reducing internal debates over patient welfare. The FCR pressured him to modify his program and make it explicitly a therapeutic trial for treating patients with advanced cancers.
Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.