Carroll, Lewis, Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There (New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc., 1872, 1993):124.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Terrence H., “Choosing Between Nuremberg and the National Commission: Balancing of Moral Principles in Clinical Research,” in (ed.) Vanderpool, Harold Y., The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21st Century (Maryland: Frederick, 1996):83.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Terrence H., “Choosing Between Nuremberg and the National Commission: Balancing of Moral Principles in Clinical Research,” in (ed.) Vanderpool, Harold Y., The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21st Century (Maryland: Frederick, 1996):85–86.Google Scholar

Levine, Robert J., “International Codes and Guidelines for Research Ethics: A Critical Appraisal,” in (ed.) Vanderpool, Harold Y., The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21st Century (Maryland: Frederick, 1996):250.Google Scholar

Gordis, L. Gold, E. Seltzer, R., “Privacy Protection in Epidemiologic and Medical Research: A Challenge and a Responsibility,” American Journal of Epidemiology 105(1977):163–168; Gordis, L. Gold, E., “Privacy, Confidentiality and the Use of Medical Records in Research,” Science 207(1980):153–156; Gostin, L., “Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Human Subject Research: Population-Based Research and Ethics,” Law, Medicine, and Health Care 19(1991):191–201; Capron, A.M., “Protection of Research Subjects: Do Special Rules Apply in Epidemiology?” Law, Medicine, and Health Care 19 (1991):184–90; Cann, C.I. Rothman, K.J., “IRBs and Epidemiologic Research: How Inappropriate Restrictions Hamper Studies,” IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research (July/August 1984): 5–7; Hershey, N., “IRB Jurisdiction and Limits on IRB Actions,” IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research (March/April 1985): 7–9; Rothman, K.J., “The Rise and Fall of Epidemiology, 1950–2000 A.D.,” N. Engl. J. Med. (March 5, 1981):600–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Public Welfare, Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Office for Protection from Research Risks, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46).Google Scholar

National and international guidelines typically share a common set of ethical principles that guide the discussions of research ethics. They were first formally articulated in the United States in the 1979 Belmont report by the United States National Commission for the Protection of Research Subjects of Biomedical and Behavior Research. Respect for Persons necessitates respect for the choices of competent individuals and protection of vulnerable persons. The right of informed consent derives from this principle. Beneficence (the charge to do good) and its counterpart nonmalficence (the admonition to do no harm) necessitate maximizing benefits and minimizing research harms. Justice demands equal treatment and, in the research context, refers to fairly distributing benefits and burdens. The Belmont Report, reprinted in Vanderpool, Harold Y. (ed.), The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21^st Century (Maryland: Frederick, 1996):438. Further discussion of the Belmont Report follows.Google Scholar

CIOMS, International Guidelines for Ethical Review of Epidemiological Studies (Geneva, 1991), reprinted in Law, Medicine & Health Care 19, no. 3–4(Fall-Winter 1991): 247–258, at 255.Google Scholar

CIOMS, International Guidelines for Ethical Review of Epidemiological Studies (Geneva, 1991), reprinted in Law, Medicine & Health Care 19, no. 3–4 (Fall-Winter 1991): 249.Google Scholar

CIOMS, International Guidelines for Ethical Review of Epidemiological Studies (Geneva, 1991), reprinted in Law, Medicine & Health Care 19, no. 3–4 (Fall-Winter 1991): 258.Google Scholar

And, indeed, that this might happen was a concern early in the epidemic, as ethicists began to develop guidelines for AIDS research in a fashion that the CDC feared did not adequately set surveillance apart. Memo from James R. Allen, MD, Chief, Surveillance Section, AIDS Activity, Centers for Disease Control regarding “Meeting on Confidentiality and Research into AIDS, Hastings Center, New York,” November 7, 1983.Google Scholar

Bayer, R. Levine, C. Wolf, S.M., “HIV Antibody Screening: An Ethical Framework for Evaluating Proposed Programs,” JAMA 256(1986):1768–1774; Office for the Protection from Research Risks, HIV Seroprevalence Survey of Childbearing Women: Testing Neonatal Dried Blood Specimens on Filter Paper for HIV Antibody (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control, 1988); Guidelines on Ethical and Legal Conditions in Anonymous Unlinked HIV Seroprevalence Research (Ottowa, Ontario: Government of Canada Federal AIDS Centre, May 1988); and Unlinked Anonymous Screening for the Public Health Surveillance of HIV Infections Proposed International Guidelines (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Global Programme on AIDS, 1989).Google Scholar

Bayer, Ronald, “The Ethics of Blinded HIV Surveillance Testing,” American Journal of public health 83, no. 4 (April 1993):496–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fairchild, Amy L. Bayer, Ronald, “The Uses and Abuses of Tuskegee,” Science 284 (May 7, 1999):919–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Amy Fairchild and Ronald Bayer, interview with Tim Dondero, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, June 11, 2002.Google Scholar

Office for Protection from Research Risks, Division of Human Subject Protections, “Evaluation of Human Subject Protections in Research Conducted by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,” (July 1995):7. Hereafter OPRR report.Google Scholar

In addition, the letter alleged that the study violated Public Health Service policy on informing individuals who were tested for HIV about their serostatus and that the IRB review was improper due to conflicts of interest. OPRR report, p. 8.Google Scholar

Further, it determined that policy on informing individuals of their test results did not apply to blinded tests. It did, however, question the diversity of the CDC’s IRB and recommended changes on the grounds that “it is especially critical that no real or apparent conflict of interest undermine respect for [federal agency] IRBs' advice and counsel in safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects.” OPRR, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

OPRR report, p. 11.Google Scholar

OPRR report, p. 14.Google Scholar

Speers interview.Google Scholar

Speers interview. See also E-mail from Roger Bernier, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to Marjorie Speers, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 20, 1999. When the controversy over research and practice between the CDC and the states began to unfold, an idea was put forth regarding the use of “telltale signs” as a means to distinguish research from practice based not on intent but rather “what is actually done.”Google Scholar

Speers interview.Google Scholar

The National Research Act mandated evaluation of all federally-funded human subjects research by IRBs.Google Scholar

Brody, Baruch A., The Ethics of Biomedical Research: An International Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998):57.Google Scholar

Minutes, Protection of Human Research Subjects in public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, March 18–19, 1996, p. 5.Google Scholar

WMA, Declaration of Helsinki (1989), reprinted in Law, Medicine & Health Care 19 no. 3–4(Fall-Winter 1991):264–265, at 265. This distinction—the subject of substantial criticism—would persist virtually unchanged until the 2000 revision of the code, when it was substantially modified. Levine, Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research, p.9–10. In 2000, the Declaration of Helsinki provided principles governing all of medical research with special principles for research combined with care. It is also in this year that references to “physicians” are completely replaced by references to “investigators” or “researchers.”Google Scholar

Robert Levine, talk before the NHRPAC, July 31, 2002.Google Scholar

The Belmont Report, reprinted in Vanderpool, Harold Y. (ed.), The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21st Century (Maryland: Frederick, 1996):438.Google Scholar

Quoted in Levine, Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research, p. 3.Google Scholar

Quoted in Levine, Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research, p. 3.Google Scholar

The Belmont Report, reprinted in Vanderpool, Harold Y. (ed.), The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21st Century (Maryland: Frederick, 1996):438.Google Scholar

45 CFR 46.Google Scholar

Robert Levine, who had been an instrumental informant and consultant to the National Commission in formulating the Belmont Report had indicated to Speers that, indeed, intent had at one time been included in the definition. Speers.Google Scholar

Robert Levine, interview with Fairchild, December 2, 2002.Google Scholar

Snider, D.E. Stroup, D.F., “Defining Research When It Comes to Public Health,” Public Health Reports 112, no.1(1997):29–32.Google Scholar

Snider and Stroup, “Defining Research.”Google Scholar

Minutes, Protection of Human Research Subjects in public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, March 18–19, 1996, p. p. 2.Google Scholar

Snider and Stroup, “Defining Research,” p. 2.Google Scholar

E-mail from Tom Puglisi, Office of the Director, OPRR, to Marjorie Speers, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 4, 1999.Google Scholar

Snider, Dixie E., “Comments for the External Review Panel: Characteristics of CDC-Supported Research,” presented at “Human Subjects Review Processes at CDC: Summary of External Consultants Meeting,” March 24, 2000, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Atlanta, Georgia, March 4–5, 1999: P. 22; Amy Fairchild and Ronald Bayer, interview with Patricia Fleming, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, June 11, 2002.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Atlanta, Georgia, March 4–5, 1999: Pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

In Minnesota, in contrast, state law required that public health investigators inform the public that participation is voluntary in addition to why data are being collected and how they will be used. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Atlanta, Georgia, March 4–5, 1999: P. 13.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Atlanta, Georgia, March 4–5, 1999: P. 15.Google Scholar

Minnesota law, in contrast, prohibits legally mandated public health activities from undergoing IRB review. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Atlanta, Georgia, March 4–5, 1999: P. 12.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Atlanta, Georgia, March 4–5, 1999: P. 12.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Guidelines for Defining Public Health Research,” Revised June 1999, pp. 3, 4.Google Scholar

Letter from John Middaugh, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, to Marjorie Speers, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 7, 1999, p. 2.Google Scholar

Letter from Benjamin Mojica, MD, MPH, Deputy Commissioner of Health, The City of New York, Department of Health, to Donna Knutson, Executive Director, Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, August 25, 1999, p. 3.Google Scholar

New York State Public Health Law Section 2441(2).Google Scholar

Letter from Benjamin Mojica, MD, MPH, Deputy Commissioner of Health, The City of New York, Department of Health, to Donna Knutson, Executive Director, Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, August 25, 1999, p. 3.Google Scholar

Letter from John Middaugh, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, to Marjorie Speers, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 7, 1999, p. 2. See also letter from Benjamin Mojica, MD, MPH, Deputy Commissioner of Health, The City of New York, Department of Health, to Donna Knutson, Executive Director, Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, August 25, 1999, p. 4.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Guidelines for Defining Public Health Research,” Revised June 1999, p. 5.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Guidelines for Defining Public Health Research,” Revised June 1999, p. 5.Google Scholar

Letter from John Middaugh, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, to Marjorie Speers, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 7, 1999, pp. 2, 3.Google Scholar

E-mail from Guthrie Birkhead, New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute, to Marjorie Speers, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 1, 1999; E-mail from Kristine Moore, CSTE and Minnesota State Department of Health, to Marjorie Speers, June 9, 1999; E-mail from Diane Simpson, Texas State Department of Health, to Donna B. Knutson, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, July 20, 1999. For general objections to the distinctions drew between research and practice, see Memo from the Director, NIOSH, Department of Health and Human Services, to Marjorie Speers, May 28, 1999.Google Scholar

10 N.Y.C.R.R.24–1.1.Google Scholar

Letter from Benjamin Mojica, MD, MPH, Deputy Commissioner of Health, The City of New York, Department of Health, to Donna Knutson, Executive Director, Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, August 25, 1999, p. 2.Google Scholar

Letter from John Middaugh, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, to Marjorie Speers, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 7, 1999, p. 1. See also E-mail from Guthrie Birkhead, New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute, to Marjorie Speers, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 1, 1999; E-mail from Kristine Moore, CSTE and Minnesota State Department of Health, to Marjorie Speers, June 9, 1999; E-mail from Diane Simpson, Texas State Department of Health, to Donna B. Knutson, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, July 20, 1999; and E-mail from Stephen Waterman to Fran Reid-Sanden, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 3, 1999. Colorado, in contrast to all of the other states commenting on the CDC draft guidelines, did not object to any of the distinctions drawn between research and practice but rather to the fact that research protocols had to undergo IRB review at both the state- and federal-level. E-mail from Richard Hoffman, Colorado State Department of Public Health and Environment, to Guthrie Birkhead, New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute, August 26, 1999 and Richard E. Hoffman, Colorado State Department of Public Health and Environment, to Dixie Snider, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 3, 1999.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Guidelines for Defining Public Health Research and Public Health Non-Research,” October 4, 1999. Also available on-line at <http://www.cdc.gov/ocl/ads/opspolll.htm> (last visited November 14, 2003).+(last+visited+November+14,+2003).>Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Atlanta, Georgia, March 4–5, 1999: Pp. 19, 26. CSTE Position Statement 1996–8, “Definition of Public Health Research,” <http://www.cste.org/ps/1996/1996–08.htm> (last visited November 14, 2003); Patrick, Sarah L., Epidemiology Section, American Public Health Association, “CDC Efforts to Ensure Human Subjects Protection in Applied Epidemiologic Activities,” Epidemiology Section Newsletter (Fall 2001):6–7. available at <http://www.apha.org/private/news-letters/epifall2001.htm>.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Atlanta, Georgia, March 4–5, 1999, p. 27. Amy Fairchild, interview with Jim Buehler, July 8, 2002, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar

Transcript of the January 29th, 1998 Roundtable on Privacy and Confidentiality, National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, p. 17.Google Scholar

Reported to the author under conditions of anonymity.Google Scholar