|
There is a considerable probability that unethical and
involuntary human experiments are currently being conducted by the U.S.
Federal Government for research into behavioral control. In this research,
bio-effects of EM fields and beamed energy are used to directly affect the
central nervous system, with the goal of influencing human
behavior.
|
| II. |
Members of the U.S. Congress have publicly
stated that current safeguards in U.S. federal law and U.S.
federal policies do not provide sufficient protection for
human research subjects and do not prohibit involuntary human
research. Although legislation has been introduced to
correct these problems, the legislation has not been
ratified. These problems continue to exist.
| A. |
In 1997 U.S. Senator John Glenn introduced
legislation in the U.S. Senate titled Human Research
Subject Protections Act of 1997 (S.193, U.S.
Senate, 105th Congress, 1st
session).
Introducing S.193, Senator Glenn made the
following comments on the floor of the U.S. Senate:
|
"In 1993 the Governmental Affairs Committee
began to investigate the cold war radiation
experiments. These experiments are one of the
unfortunate legacies of the cold war, when our
Government sponsored experiments involving
radiation on our own citizens without their
consent.
... During the course of this investigation, I
began to ask the question, what protections are in
place to prevent such abuses from happening
again? What law prohibits experimenting on
people without their informed consent?
What I found, when I looked into it, is there
is no law on the books requiring that informed
consent be obtained. More important, I
believe there is a need for such a law, as there
continue to be cases where this basic right--I do
view it as a basic right--is abused.
... we still don't have a law on our books
requiring that informed consent--those two words,
`informed consent'--be obtained prior to
conducting research on human subjects.
... there is a very elaborate system of
protections that have developed over the years.
Unfortunately, though, this system does have some
gaps and, if enacted, I believe this legislation
will close those gaps.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, there are ongoing
problems with inappropriate, ethically suspect
research on human subjects. It is difficult to
know the extent of such problems because
information is not collected in any formal manner
on human research.
The Cleveland Plain-Dealer [ a newspaper ] in
my home State of Ohio has recently reported in a
whole series of articles, after much investigation
of this issue.
... The Plain-Dealer uncovered a number of
disturbing cases, very disturbing cases as a
matter of fact, where people were either unaware
of the fact that they were involved in research or
were not provided full information about potential
side effects of research. The series raises very
serious questions about the adequacy of our
current system of protecting human research
subjects.
... The Plain-Dealer uncovered much evidence to
suggest that the Federal Government continues to
sponsor research where informed consent is not
obtained. And this fact disturbed me greatly
also.
... Under current rule and executive order, it
is possible to waive informed consent and IRB
review for classified research."
U.S. Senator John
Glenn,
Statements
made introducing Human Research Subject
Protection Act of 1997,
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT
RESOLUTIONS
(U.S.
Senate - January 22,
1997) | In the
text of his proposed legislation, Senator Glenn noted
the following specific deficiencies in current
protections for human research subjects in the U.S.:
|
"(a) FINDINGS- Congress makes the following
findings:
(5) In 1995, the President's
Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments
found that there are significant deficiencies in
some aspects of the current system for the
protection of human subjects. In particular, the
Committee found that some consent forms currently
in use are flawed in morally significant aspects.
(7) Some agencies of the Federal government
sponsor research involving human subjects, but
these agencies have not adopted the Common Rule as
provided for in part 46 of title 45, Code of
Federal Regulations.
(8) Private individuals
or institutions that do not receive any Federal
funding or that are not seeking the approval of
the Food and Drug Administration for a drug or
device, and that sponsor research involving human
subjects, do not need to abide by the requirements
of part 46 of title 45, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(10) Notwithstanding paragraphs
(1) through (9), no provision of United States law
explicitly requires that informed consent and
independent review of research involving human
subject be obtained."
Human Research
Subject Protections Act of 1997 (Introduced in
Senate)
S.193,
105th CONGRESS, 1st
Session | The
Human Research Subject Protections Act of 1997
has not been ratified.
|
| B. |
On June 8th, 2000, U.S. Representative Diana DeGette
introduced legislation titled Human Research Subject
Protections Act of 2000 (H.R.4605,
106th Congress, 2nd session) in
the U.S. House of Representatives. This
legislation is very similar to the Human Research
Subject Protection Act of 1997 that Senator Glenn
introduced in the U.S. Senate. In particular, with
minor changes, the text of Human Research Subject
Protections Act of 2000 contains each of the above
quoted findings, "(5)", "(7)", "(8)", and "(10)" from
the text of Human Research Subject Protection Act of
1997. Representative DeGette’s Human
Research Subject Protections Act of 2000 has
not been ratified.
|
|
| C. |
Very recently, on November 21, 2003 Representative
DeGette introduced legislation titled Protection for
Participants in Research Act of 2003 (H. R.
3594, 108th Congress, 1st
session) in the U.S. House of Representatives. In
particular, from the text of the proposed law,
Protection for Participants in Research Act of
2003 would require that "a principal investigator,
may not, except as provided in the Common Rule, involve
an individual as a subject in human subject research
unless the investigator or other knowledgeable person
has obtained the informed consent of the individual to
be a subject."
On December 4th 2003 the Protection for
Participants in Research Act of 2003 was referred
for consideration to the Subcommittee on Health of the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The recent introduction of Protection for
Participants in Research Act of 2003, with its
specific requirement that informed consent be obtained
before a person can be used in human subject research,
indicates that involuntary human experimentation
continues to be a problem in the U.S.
| | |
| |
|