Lessons Learned From the Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study

Abstract

We examined 5 different ethical concerns about the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study and make some recommendations for future studies of exposure to hazardous environmental agents in the home. Researchers should seek community consultation and participation; make participants aware of all the risks associated with the research, including hazards discovered in the home and uncertainties about the risks of agents under investigation; and take steps to ensure that their studies will not have unfair representation of the poor or people of color. Researchers should also avoid even the appearance of a financial conflict of interest in studies that are likely to be controversial and make it clear to all parties that studies will not intentionally expose subjects to hazardous environmental agents.

The West End Revitalization Association's Community-Owned and -Managed Research Model: Development, Implementation, and Action

“…[21][22][23][24][25][26] Ideas that stimulate research questions are usually generated ahead of time by the university PIs and shared, to an extent, with community members after funding is acquired. [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] In practice, these university-managed partnerships are not always beneficial for community members seeking solutions because there is a different set of priorities/values for project management, data use and ownership, leveraging of funding for additional projects, tenure requirements, as well as control and authorization at each step of the research process (e.g., research question development; grant acquisition, data collection, storage, and analysis; and presentation/publication of the findings). Many CBOs with a high level of organizational capacity may benefit from a new, community-driven research model that addresses the imbalance of power and control inherent in UMRMs.…”

Environmental Health Research Involving Human Subjects: Ethical Issues

“…One of the important ethical differences between observational and experimental studies in environmental health research is that observational studies usually impose fewer risks on research subjects than experimental ones, because observational studies collect data on people in their natural environment (Resnik and Wing, 2007). Observational studies usually impose risks on subjects that are not greater than the risks subjects would ordinarily encounter in daily life, which are defined as “minimal risks” under the federal research regulations (see 45 C.F.R.…”

“…In the fall of 2004 a field study designed and funded by the EPA and Centers for Disease Control and Surveillance (CDC), with financial support from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), named the Children’s Environmental Exposure Study (CHEERS), became ensnared in the controversy concerning pesticide experiments on human subjects (Resnik and Wing, 2007). The aim of the study was to observe children’s exposures to pesticides and other chemicals in the home.…”

“…Most of the infamous or controversial cases discussed in the literature on human experimentation—the Nazi Experiments, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the Department of Energy’s secret human radiation experiments, and HIV research in developing nations—have been about medical research conducted in a clinical setting (Coleman et al 2005; Emanuel et al 2008; Levine 1988). In the last five years, however, ethical issues in environmental health research with human subjects have drawn greater attention (Resnik et al 2005; Resnik and Zeldin, 2008; Resnik and Wing, 2007; Resnik, 2008; Resnik, 2006; Institute of Medicine, 2005; National Research Council, 2004; Sharp, 2003). Most of the ethical issues that occur in environmental health research are similar to those that arise in clinical research, but since there are important scientific, social, and political differences between environmental health research and clinical research, these familiar issues appear under a new light.…”

EPA's 2006 Human-Subjects Rule for Pesticide Experiments

“…These include its targeting low-income, minority children; its violating informed consent by offering what may be perceived as substantial sums of money and gifts to poor minority parents to enroll their children (under age 3) in the pesticide study; its encouraging these parents to use pesticides; its failing to conduct a distributive analysis of risks and benefits to the subjects; and its using flawed institutional review boards (whose members had conflicts of interest) to approve the study (EPA, 2004c;Paulson, 2006;Resnik and Wing, 2007).…”