Last week the New York Times and LA Times reported violations of FDA mandated dosage levels in the chemicals used in clinical PET (positron emission tomography) studies at a major lab, the Kreitchman PET Center, at the Columbia University Medical Center.
Most people who participate in experimental studies of drug treatments are vulnerable–either via poverty, mental illness, other disability, race–and while they consent to participate. That consent carries with it an acknowledgment of a higher risk, but it’s also based on the basic trust that the studies are at least in accord with federal and other regulations (e.g., university research ethics boards approvals, when done in university environments).
The practice of chasing “willing subjects” to all corners of the globe became widespread as these approvals onshore became harder to gain for domestic populations, a story told in The Constant Gardener that had at least one kind of less-than-fully-evil outcome, as reported last year by The Independent.
So what is going on at Columbia University? (apart from damage control by their administration) Below the fold is the LA Times article; here’s the link to the original article, and here’s a h/t link to the AHRP blog post by Vera on this story. Continue reading
Call For Papers
“Fat Studies: A Critical Dialogue”
Special Journal Issue of Feminism & Psychology
Guest Editor: Dr Samantha Murray
While cultural anxieties about fatness and stigmatisation of fat
bodies in Western cultures have been central to dominant discourses
about bodily `propriety´ since the early twentieth century, the rise
of the `disease´ category of obesity and the moral panic over an
alleged global `obesity epidemic´ has lent a medical authority and
legitimacy to what can be described as `fat-phobia´. Against the
backdrop of the ever-growing medicalisation and pathologisation of
fatness, the field of Fat Studies has emerged in recent years to offer
an interdisciplinary critical interrogation of the dominant medical
models of health, to give voice to the lived experience of fat bodies,
and to offer critical insights into, and investigations of, the
ethico-political implications of the cultural meanings that have come
to be attached to fat bodies.
This Special Issue will examine a range of questions concerning the
construction of fat bodies in the dominant imaginary, including the
problematic intersection of medical discourse and morality around
`obesity´, disciplinary technologies of `health´ to normalise fat
bodies (such as diet regimes, exercise programs and bariatric
surgeries), gendered aspects of `fat´, dominant discourses of
`fatness´ in a range of cultural contexts, and critical strategies for
political resistance to pervasive `fat-phobic´ attitudes. Continue reading
Hipster Porn, by Gavin McInnes, at Arts and Opinion:
Anyone who’s seen Mike Tyson fight is aware of the benefits a violent childhood can bring. You don’t have to condone kids getting beat up every day to enjoy seeing him in the ring. You don’t want your children to follow the same path, but as far as Tyson’s shitty life goes, there’s no better job. Not just anybody can step in the ring. Athletic commissions regulate boxing licenses and make sure things don’t get too gory. Tyson himself had his license rescinded in 1997 after biting off his opponent’s ear. This is the way it should be. Boxing is a violent sport that can do serious, permanent damage. I have never been the same after challenging a professional MMA fighter to a fight. I didn’t have the experience to handle the guy and ended up in the hospital with cerebral contusions. I’ll never do that again.
Pornography is exactly the same. … read the rest here.
see here for details May be someone on this blog tried it out already?
At Rolling Around in My Head, DH gives us a great disability blog carnival.
And congrats to Dick Sobsey not only for being Dave’s hero, but also for getting the WSB mentioned.