Advertisement

Journal of Public Health

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 461–475 | Cite as

Clinical research, an empirical work on the European market of human experimentation

  • Roberto IppolitiEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Aim

The target of this work is to support the thesis that pharmaceutical companies’ testing phase would be treated like any other form of production in a globalization process, that is to say, a specific phase of pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) could be localized where the cost of clinical evidence is lower.

Subject and methods

Considering Europe, an empirical analysis in order to support the main hypothesis is performed. Taking trials of phases II and III, funded by Industry (dependent variable) and the main macroeconomic features (independent variables) of each nation into account, the empirical work is implemented via regression analysis on panel data (2000–2007). The sample analyzed considers EU-27 plus the candidate states—Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey—as well as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland.

Results

Results suggest the appropriateness of this process since clinical research is clearly affected by economic conditions, regardless of the scientific purpose.

Conclusion

The conclusions regard the policy maker’s point of view, that is to say, how national competitiveness could be increased on the European market of human experimentation.

Keywords

Pharmaceutical company R&D Human experimentation Medical researcher Research subject 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Appelbaum PS (2002) Clarifying the ethics of clinical research: a path toward avoiding the therapeutic misconception. AJOB 2(2):22–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C (1982) The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. IJLP 5:319–329Google Scholar
  3. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C, Benson P, Winslade W (1987) False hope and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hasting Cent Rep 17(2):20–24Google Scholar
  4. Ariely D (2008) Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions, 1st edn. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Arrow KJ (1963) Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. AER III(5):941–973Google Scholar
  6. Blumenthal JA (2004) Law and emotions: the problem of affective forecasting. Indiana Law J 80:155–238Google Scholar
  7. Braddock CH III, Finn SD, Levinson W et al (1997) How doctors and patients discuss routine clinical decisions: informed decision making in the outpatient setting. JGIM 12(6):339–345PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Calabresi G (1969) Reflection on medical experimentation in humans. Daedalus 98(2):387–405Google Scholar
  9. Daugherty CK (1999) Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: a medical oncology perspective. JCO 17(5):1601–1617Google Scholar
  10. Dickert N, Emanuel E, Grady C (2002) Paying research subjects: an analysis of current policies. Ann Intern Med 136(5):368–373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Emanuel EJ (1995) A phase I trial on the ethics of phase I trials. JCO 13(5):1049–1051Google Scholar
  12. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, King NMP (1986) A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Freedman B (1990) Cohort-specific consent: an honest approach to phase I clinical cancer studies. IRB 12(1):5–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grady C (2001) Money for research participation: Does it jeopardize informed consent? AJOB 1(2):40–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Green WH (2003) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. New York University, Prentice Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Hilbe JM (2011) Negative binomial regression. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ippoliti R (2010) The market of human experimentation. Eur J Law Econ. doi: 10.1007/s10657-010-9190
  18. Jolls C, Sunstein CR, Thaler R (1998) A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Rev 50:1471–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller M (2000) Phase I cancer trials: a collusion of misunderstanding. Hasting Cent Rep 30(4):34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ripley EBD (2006) A review of paying research participants: it’s time to move beyond the ethical debate. JERHRE 1(4):9–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sankar P (2004) Communication and miscommunication in informed consent to research. MAQ 18(4):429–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Suits DB (1957) Use of dummy variables in regression equations. JASA 52(280):548–551Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IEL - International Program in Institutions, Economics & LawReal Collegio Carlo AlbertoMoncalieriItaly

Personalised recommendations