Safe human reproductive cloning can only be achieved by conducting research and developing techniques that ensure the safety of the gestating mother and the health and welfare of the child. The huge obstacle to designing safe procedures is that any such research will involve experimentation on humans.
Medical experiments on humans are conducted all the time, but new drugs, procedures, and devices are tested on animals first. Clinical drug trials are a classic example of human experimentation. Phase I clinical trials are the "safety" phase of bringing a new drug to market. Animal testing has been done, most often in mice. Data have been reported and analyzed, and the FDA has permitted human testing to proceed.
But the side effects in humans and the proper dosages are completely unknown. Researchers make informed guesses so that deaths of study participants are rare events. But clinical drug trials are human experiments and people do die. In the absence of detailed animal studies, experiments done directly on humans are viewed with great suspicion and are usually proscribed.
Taking steps to ensure the safety of medical research participants is a relatively new aspect of public policy. As recently as the early 1970s, unethical medical experimentation was being done on human subjects. Researchers in the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study (completed in 1972) and in the notorious Willowbrook State School hepatitis study (terminated in 1966) violated the human rights of the adults and children who served as study participants.
At Willowbrook (an institution housing mentally disabled children) researchers studied the natural history and epidemiology of hepatitis by exposing children to live virus. Parents were made to understand that hard-to-come-by places at Willowbrook would be obtained if they allowed their children to be research subjects. The Tuskegee study investigated the natural progression of syphilis in African-American sharecroppers who had the disease. Effective treatment for syphilis (penicillin) was withheld from these men in direct violation of their human rights as enumerated in the Nuremberg Code and Helsinki Declaration.
Revelations of the circumstances involved in the Willowbrook and Tuskegee studies led to the findings of the Belmont Report and the establishment of Office for Human Research Protections, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Belmont Report enumerated four primary principles of bioethics -
· Respect for persons (autonomy)
· Beneficence
· Nonmaleficence
· Justice
The first attempt at introducing a cloned embryo into a woman's uterus will have no precedent. It will be a total shot in the dark, truly "boldly going where no one has gone before". As a society we need to determine whether the risks of such a step justify the potential benefits.
David Lemberg, M.S. in Bioethics, Albany Medical College, May 2010. Consultant, Author, Speaker. Research interests - health care and health care policy, reproductive technologies, genetics and genomics, K-12 science education. Executive Producer, SCIENCE AND SOCIETY,
Friday, June 25, 2010
Impact of Clinical Research Jobs on Life Science Industry
There is a big impact on the life science industry in UK, which is now on expansion mode with the kind of practices being put into practice concerning clinical research jobs. The main objective is to make sure that these research jobs creates and implements clinical procedures within the industry that can benefit many people who desire for quality treatment. The focus is mainly on research activities related to new pharmaceutical products that can aid in better treatment for everyone.
The available medical research jobs are best suited for professionals who would like a dedicated and challenging career in this field of work. This field is greatly suited to those who have hunger for new discoveries and can put in the necessary effort for suitable innovative practices.
Therefore, there lie enormous opportunities for clinical assignments within this industry for the right kind of candidate. There exists numerous avenues like developmental biology, genetics, evolution, and so on that offers great scope of work in either specialised positions or normal clinical research work.
These clinical jobs in UK offer a great deal of opportunity to suitable candidates to show their skills in both research and developmental activities along with the possibility to try out clinical laboratory or field based work. There always exists an opportunity to choose the field of work in this industry based on your career objectives. There have been some positive changes within the industry that has put forward best practices in relation to data analysis and experimental design medical research work.
The available medical research jobs are best suited for professionals who would like a dedicated and challenging career in this field of work. This field is greatly suited to those who have hunger for new discoveries and can put in the necessary effort for suitable innovative practices.
Therefore, there lie enormous opportunities for clinical assignments within this industry for the right kind of candidate. There exists numerous avenues like developmental biology, genetics, evolution, and so on that offers great scope of work in either specialised positions or normal clinical research work.
These clinical jobs in UK offer a great deal of opportunity to suitable candidates to show their skills in both research and developmental activities along with the possibility to try out clinical laboratory or field based work. There always exists an opportunity to choose the field of work in this industry based on your career objectives. There have been some positive changes within the industry that has put forward best practices in relation to data analysis and experimental design medical research work.
Medical Research Studies & "Spin"
We would all like to believe that research studies that have been successfully published in highly regarded medical and scientific journals have been so thoroughly vetted prior to publication, that we can readily accept their findings and conclusions. However, as with any other endeavor that is undertaken by humans, flaws in research hypotheses or methodologies, errors in the actual conduct of research, and erroneous conclusions drawn from the resulting research data can all lead research scientists and clinicians astray. It is because of these inherent weaknesses associated with research that standardized checks and balances are supposed to be observed in the conduct of all research studies, in an effort to reduce the risk of bias and error in the conduct of research, and in the analysis of the data that they generate.
Despite all of the safeguards that are supposed to be observed while conducting research, and with research studies involving human subjects in particular, bias and error cannot be completely eliminated in every case, and this reality must be accepted. However, a more worrisome cause of erroneous conclusions in health-related research has been of growing concern to medical journal editors and medical ethicists, lately. While many clinical research studies produce important new findings that improve our understanding of the diagnosis and treatment of human disease, many other studies result in non-significant findings that do not really advance our understanding in any meaningful way. In view of the enormous pressure upon research scientists and clinicians to publish clinically meaningful and statistically significant research findings, it is probably not too surprising to learn that some researchers can succumb to the pressure of "fudging" their conclusions when their research data fails to yield any clinically (or statistically) significant findings. Although the overly optimistic interpretation of research results by researchers is a well-known phenomenon, the extent to which this routinely occurs has been unclear. Now, a newly published study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reveals the apparent extent to which this disturbing trend contaminates the published findings of clinical research studies.
In this study of "researcher spin," the authors analyzed 72 prospective randomized clinical research trials, out of a total of 616 randomized controlled research study papers published in peer-reviewed medical journals in December of 2006. These 72 studies were selected because their treatment findings failed to reach scientifically accepted levels of statistical significance (which is usually defined as a less than 5 percent probability of the observed outcome occurring by chance).
The results of this analytic study are disturbing, to say the least:
- In 18 percent of cases, the authors of these "negative" studies chose a title for their study that clearly implied statistically or clinically significant results, despite the lack of significant primary research findings.
- Within the abstract section (a brief summary of the entire study), 38 percent of the authors either exaggerated or minimized their results in such a way as to imply that their results were actually significant. An incredible 58 percent of authors also "spun" the conclusions in their abstracts to suggest clinically meaningful outcomes that were not supported by their own published research data.
- Within the main body of these 72 research papers, additional "spin" was identified in 29 percent of the Results sections, 43 percent of the Discussion sections, and 50 percent of the Conclusions sections!
- Among these 72 research papers, more than 40 percent of the authors engaged in "spin" in at least 2 sections of the main body of their research papers.
The findings of this study, that research authors are routinely exaggerating or otherwise embellishing their research outcomes, are not surprising to me, as a former cancer research scientist, nor would they be surprising to most other research scientists. However, the sheer scale of "spin" on the part of research scientists, as revealed by this study, is a real eye-opener. Despite all of the safeguards that have been enacted, over the past 30 to 40 years, to promote objective and honest research, to think that at least half of all authors are routinely engaging in "spinning" their non significant research results, in an intentional effort to imply that their findings are significant, is disturbing (to say the least).
These highly disappointing findings also further validate the primary purpose of this global health research update column: to objectively and critically present cutting edge clinical and laboratory health-research findings to the hundreds of thousands of my regular readers around the world. While this method of health journalism may not be as sensational or as sexy as that presented by the non-physician and non-scientist columnists in the mainstream media, it is, nonetheless, a more honest and informative approach than that used by traditional media companies seeking to lure new readers with their hyperbole and their breathless (but superficial) reporting.
To read more objective, in-depth, and factual research-based information related to cancer prevention, look for the publication of my new landmark book, " A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race," in the summer of this year.
Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity.
Despite all of the safeguards that are supposed to be observed while conducting research, and with research studies involving human subjects in particular, bias and error cannot be completely eliminated in every case, and this reality must be accepted. However, a more worrisome cause of erroneous conclusions in health-related research has been of growing concern to medical journal editors and medical ethicists, lately. While many clinical research studies produce important new findings that improve our understanding of the diagnosis and treatment of human disease, many other studies result in non-significant findings that do not really advance our understanding in any meaningful way. In view of the enormous pressure upon research scientists and clinicians to publish clinically meaningful and statistically significant research findings, it is probably not too surprising to learn that some researchers can succumb to the pressure of "fudging" their conclusions when their research data fails to yield any clinically (or statistically) significant findings. Although the overly optimistic interpretation of research results by researchers is a well-known phenomenon, the extent to which this routinely occurs has been unclear. Now, a newly published study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reveals the apparent extent to which this disturbing trend contaminates the published findings of clinical research studies.
In this study of "researcher spin," the authors analyzed 72 prospective randomized clinical research trials, out of a total of 616 randomized controlled research study papers published in peer-reviewed medical journals in December of 2006. These 72 studies were selected because their treatment findings failed to reach scientifically accepted levels of statistical significance (which is usually defined as a less than 5 percent probability of the observed outcome occurring by chance).
The results of this analytic study are disturbing, to say the least:
- In 18 percent of cases, the authors of these "negative" studies chose a title for their study that clearly implied statistically or clinically significant results, despite the lack of significant primary research findings.
- Within the abstract section (a brief summary of the entire study), 38 percent of the authors either exaggerated or minimized their results in such a way as to imply that their results were actually significant. An incredible 58 percent of authors also "spun" the conclusions in their abstracts to suggest clinically meaningful outcomes that were not supported by their own published research data.
- Within the main body of these 72 research papers, additional "spin" was identified in 29 percent of the Results sections, 43 percent of the Discussion sections, and 50 percent of the Conclusions sections!
- Among these 72 research papers, more than 40 percent of the authors engaged in "spin" in at least 2 sections of the main body of their research papers.
The findings of this study, that research authors are routinely exaggerating or otherwise embellishing their research outcomes, are not surprising to me, as a former cancer research scientist, nor would they be surprising to most other research scientists. However, the sheer scale of "spin" on the part of research scientists, as revealed by this study, is a real eye-opener. Despite all of the safeguards that have been enacted, over the past 30 to 40 years, to promote objective and honest research, to think that at least half of all authors are routinely engaging in "spinning" their non significant research results, in an intentional effort to imply that their findings are significant, is disturbing (to say the least).
These highly disappointing findings also further validate the primary purpose of this global health research update column: to objectively and critically present cutting edge clinical and laboratory health-research findings to the hundreds of thousands of my regular readers around the world. While this method of health journalism may not be as sensational or as sexy as that presented by the non-physician and non-scientist columnists in the mainstream media, it is, nonetheless, a more honest and informative approach than that used by traditional media companies seeking to lure new readers with their hyperbole and their breathless (but superficial) reporting.
To read more objective, in-depth, and factual research-based information related to cancer prevention, look for the publication of my new landmark book, " A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race," in the summer of this year.
Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Home equity loan
A home equity loan (sometimes abbreviated HEL) is a type of loan in which the borrower uses the equity in their home as collateral. These loans are sometimes useful to help finance major home repairs, medical bills or college education. A home equity loan creates a lien against the borrower's house, and reduces actual home equity.
Home equity loans are most commonly second position liens (second trust deed), although they can be held in first or, less commonly, third position. Most home equity loans require good to excellent credit history, and reasonable loan-to-value and combined loan-to-value ratios. Home equity loans come in two types, closed end and open end.
Both are usually referred to as second mortgages, because they are secured against the value of the property, just like a traditional mortgage. Home equity loans and lines of credit are usually, but not always, for a shorter term than first mortgages. In the United States, it is sometimes possible to deduct home equity loan interest on one's personal income taxes.
There is a specific difference between a home equity loan and a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). A HELOC is a line of revolving credit with an adjustable interest rate whereas a home equity loan is a one time lump-sum loan, often with a fixed interest rate.
This is a revolving credit loan, also referred to as a home equity line of credit, where the borrower can choose when and how often to borrow against the equity in the property, with the lender setting an initial limit to the credit line based on criteria similar to those used for closed-end loans. Like the closed-end loan, it may be possible to borrow up to 100% of the value of a home, less any liens. These lines of credit are available up to 30 years, usually at a variable interest rate. The minimum monthly payment can be as low as only the interest that is due.
Typically, the interest rate is based on the Prime rate plus a margin.
When considering a loan, the borrower should be familiar with the terms recourse and nonrecourse loan, secured and unsecured debt, and dischargeable and non-dischargeable debt.
US traditional mortgages are usually non recourse loans. "Nonrecourse debt or a nonrecourse loan is a secured loan (debt) that is secured by a pledge of collateral, typically real property, but for which the borrower is not personally liable."[1] A US home equity loan may be a recourse loan for which the borrower is personally liable. This distinction becomes important in foreclosure since the borrower may remain personally liable for a recourse debt on a foreclosed property.
Home equity loans are secured loans. "The debt is thus secured against the collateral — in the event that the borrower defaults, the creditor takes possession of the asset used as collateral and may sell it to satisfy the debt by regaining the amount originally lent to the borrower."[2] Credit card debt is an unsecured debt such that no asset has been pledged as collateral for the loan. Using a home equity loan to pay off credit card debt essentially converts an unsecured debt to a secured debt.
When deciding upon a type of loan, the borrower should also consider if the debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy. For instance, US student loans are "practically non-dischargeable in bankruptcy".[3]
[edit] Home equity loan fees
Here is a brief list of possible fees that may apply to your home equity loan: Appraisal fees, originator fees, title fees, stamp duties, arrangement fees, closing fees, early pay-off and other costs are often included in loans. Surveyor and conveyor or valuation fees may also apply to loans, some may be waived. The survey or conveyor and valuation costs can often be reduced, provided you find your own licensed surveyor to inspect the property considered for purchase. The title charges in secondary mortgages or equity loans are often fees for renewing the title information. Most loans will have fees of some sort, so make sure you read and ask several questions about the fees that are charged.
Home equity loans are most commonly second position liens (second trust deed), although they can be held in first or, less commonly, third position. Most home equity loans require good to excellent credit history, and reasonable loan-to-value and combined loan-to-value ratios. Home equity loans come in two types, closed end and open end.
Both are usually referred to as second mortgages, because they are secured against the value of the property, just like a traditional mortgage. Home equity loans and lines of credit are usually, but not always, for a shorter term than first mortgages. In the United States, it is sometimes possible to deduct home equity loan interest on one's personal income taxes.
There is a specific difference between a home equity loan and a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). A HELOC is a line of revolving credit with an adjustable interest rate whereas a home equity loan is a one time lump-sum loan, often with a fixed interest rate.
This is a revolving credit loan, also referred to as a home equity line of credit, where the borrower can choose when and how often to borrow against the equity in the property, with the lender setting an initial limit to the credit line based on criteria similar to those used for closed-end loans. Like the closed-end loan, it may be possible to borrow up to 100% of the value of a home, less any liens. These lines of credit are available up to 30 years, usually at a variable interest rate. The minimum monthly payment can be as low as only the interest that is due.
Typically, the interest rate is based on the Prime rate plus a margin.
When considering a loan, the borrower should be familiar with the terms recourse and nonrecourse loan, secured and unsecured debt, and dischargeable and non-dischargeable debt.
US traditional mortgages are usually non recourse loans. "Nonrecourse debt or a nonrecourse loan is a secured loan (debt) that is secured by a pledge of collateral, typically real property, but for which the borrower is not personally liable."[1] A US home equity loan may be a recourse loan for which the borrower is personally liable. This distinction becomes important in foreclosure since the borrower may remain personally liable for a recourse debt on a foreclosed property.
Home equity loans are secured loans. "The debt is thus secured against the collateral — in the event that the borrower defaults, the creditor takes possession of the asset used as collateral and may sell it to satisfy the debt by regaining the amount originally lent to the borrower."[2] Credit card debt is an unsecured debt such that no asset has been pledged as collateral for the loan. Using a home equity loan to pay off credit card debt essentially converts an unsecured debt to a secured debt.
When deciding upon a type of loan, the borrower should also consider if the debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy. For instance, US student loans are "practically non-dischargeable in bankruptcy".[3]
[edit] Home equity loan fees
Here is a brief list of possible fees that may apply to your home equity loan: Appraisal fees, originator fees, title fees, stamp duties, arrangement fees, closing fees, early pay-off and other costs are often included in loans. Surveyor and conveyor or valuation fees may also apply to loans, some may be waived. The survey or conveyor and valuation costs can often be reduced, provided you find your own licensed surveyor to inspect the property considered for purchase. The title charges in secondary mortgages or equity loans are often fees for renewing the title information. Most loans will have fees of some sort, so make sure you read and ask several questions about the fees that are charged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)