Matching Items (3)
Description
The inherent risk in testing drugs has been hotly debated since the government first started regulating the drug industry in the early 1900s. Who can assume the risks associated with trying new pharmaceuticals is unclear when looked at through society's lens. In the mid twentieth century, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published several guidance documents encouraging researchers to exclude women from early clinical drug research. The motivation to publish those documents and the subsequent guidance documents in which the FDA and other regulatory offices established their standpoints on women in drug research may have been connected to current events at the time. The problem of whether women should be involved in drug research is a question of who can assume risk and who is responsible for disseminating what specific kinds of information. The problem tends to be framed as one that juxtaposes the health of women and fetuses and sets their health as in opposition. That opposition, coupled with the inherent uncertainty in testing drugs, provides for a complex set of issues surrounding consent and access to information.
ContributorsMeek, Caroline Jane (Author) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis director) / Brian, Jennifer (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
Mr. Green has stage 4 prostate cancer which has spread to the bones and liver and has become resistant to radiation and standard chemotherapy treatment. After 3 rounds of chemotherapy, his primary oncologist recommends that he participate in a clinical trial. He went to Dr. Red at the Saguaro Clinic after reading on the internet about a new Phase 1 clinical trial that the clinic is hosting, which is designed to target a specific receptor called AB-111 that may be present in malignant prostate, cervical, ovarian, and breast cells. After signing consent and completing the blood screens in the morning at the clinic, Mr. Green is told his liver enzymes are too high and the ranges specified in the protocol prohibit him from enrolling. Mr. Green is noticeably affected and distressed at this news, and Dr. Red recommends end-of-life care. Behind the scenes, this event is noted on official medical documents and trial study rosters as a "screen fail." This narrative, while fictional, is realistic because similar events occur in cancer clinical trial sites on a regular basis. I look at the inner "world" and mental journey of possible clinical trial candidates as they seek out information about clinical trials and gain understanding of their function \u2014 specifically in the context of Phase 1 cancer clinical trials. To whom is the language of the term "screen failure" useful? How does excluding individuals from clinical trials protect their health and does the integrity of the trial data supersede the person's curative goals? What is the message that cancer patients (potential research subjects) receive regarding clinical trials from sources outside their oncologists?
ContributorsMcKane, Alexandra (Author) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis director) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Foy, Joseph (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2013-12
Description
Charlie Arntzen joined ASU in August 2000 as the Florence Ely Nelson Presidential Endowed Chair and retired in 2016 from the School of Life Sciences and Biodesign Institute. Charlie was the founding Director of the Biodesign Institute.
Important ASU stories include:
1) the creation of the Biodesign Institute,
2) the design and operation of the Biodesign labs,
3) the development of ZMapp to fight Ebola,
4) The New American University - a discussion of the importance of collaboration, and
5) several comments about Presidents Coor and Crow and Provost Glick
ContributorsChurch, Kathy (Interviewer) / Arizona State University Retirees Association (Producer)
Created2019-05-08