PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

F Gifford

Publications and source records attributed to F Gifford.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Research ethics. Managing risks of arthropod vector research.

Field research with vectors is an essential aspect of vector biology research and vector-borne disease prevention and control. This type of research, which brings experimental vector manipulations into endemic areas, can present risks to human populations. This paper seeks to stimulate a full discussion within the medical entomology community of the risks associated with vector field research. Such discussions will promote development of a consensus, among investigators, sponsoring agencies and the communities within which the work is done, so that appropriate steps can be taken to minimize and manage the risks, and adequate oversight can be maintained.

Animals↗
PubMed2000

Freedman's 'clinical equipoise' and sliding-scale all-dimensions-considered equipoise'.

It is often claimed that a clinical investigator may ethically participate (e.g., enroll patients) in a trial only if she is in equipoise (if she has no way to ground a preference for one arm of the study). But this is a serious problem, for as data accumulate, it can be expected that there will be a discernible trend favoring one of the treatments prior to the point where we achieve the trial's objective. In this paper, I critically evaluate Benjamin Freedman's 'clinical equipoise' solution to this dilemma. I argue that Freedman actually puts forth at least two distinct contrasts--one in terms of community vs. individual equipoise, and another concerning clinical vs. theoretical equipoise--and that neither of them resolves the dilemma. I then make a proposal for a more adequate account of how to think about the circumstances under which entering subjects in trials would be justified--a 'sliding-scale equipoise' that arises out of a discussion of patients' values.

Bias↗
PubMed1989

Complex genetic causation of human disease: critiques of and rationales for heritability and path analysis.

This paper examines some criticisms that have been made of two standard genetic methodologies: heritability and path analysis. I conclude that the criticisms should be taken seriously, concerning both the accuracy of heritability measures and their significance. In light of the fact that such studies remain prominent in the literature, I consider what possible rationale they can retain consistent with these criticisms. In particular, I consider (1) a role in the identification of high-risk individuals and (2) a heuristic role in the planning of research strategy.

Genetic Diseases, Inborn↗
PubMed1986

The conflict between randomized clinical trials and the therapeutic obligation.

The central dilemma concerning randomized clinical trials (RCTs) arises out of some simple facts about causal methodology (RCTs are the best way to generate the reliable causal knowledge necessary for optimally-informed action) and a prima facie plausible principle concerning how physicians should treat their patients (always do what it is most reasonable to believe will be best for the patient). A number of arguments related to this in the literature are considered. Attempts to avoid the dilemma fail. Appeals to informed consent and mechanisms for minimizing the resulting harm are important for policy, but informed consent is problematic and mechanisms for minimization of harm do not address the dilemma. Appeals to some sort of contract model of justification are promising and illuminating.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗