2016 Advancing Ethical Research Conference Bibliography

AER16 will serve as the stage for three keynote speakers, 11 plenary sessions, and a book group lunch. The topics selected for these sessions are diverse, exciting, thought-provoking, and innovative. They reflect suggestions our Planning Committee, as well as from individuals who participated in our Call for Session Proposals.

We have compiled the following resources as background material for each of these sessions. From seminal works in the field to current news features, these primary and secondary sources—selected from an array of publications—offer an introduction to the stimulating content that is waiting for you at AER16. Resources are available for the following sessions:



Keynote Address: Mary L. Gray, PhD: When Human Subjects, Science, and Consumer Rights Collide
Monday, November 14, 8:55–9:40 AM

  • Critiquing Big Data: Politics, Ethics, Epistemology
    Mary L. Gray, PhD, and co-authors discuss the political and social implications of big data. The researchers argue “rather than invest in big data as an all-knowing prognosticator or a shortcut to ground truth, we need to recognize and make plain its complexities and dimensionality as an emerging theory of knowledge.”
  • When Science, Customer Service, and Human Subjects Research Collide. Now What?
    Mary L. Gray, PhD, discusses the ethical considerations behind recent social media research. Gray argues that although technology companies and social media platforms must often blur practice and research when working on product improvement, they should not be exempt “from extending respect, beneficence, and justice to individuals sharing their daily interactions.”

Plenary Session: A New Framework for Human Subjects Research? An Update from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
Monday, November 14, 9:45–11:00 AM

  • Optimizing the Nation’s Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21stCentury
    The second part of this report details the findings and recommendations of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine on subjects that affect the nation’s involvement in academic research. This report is the basis for this plenary session.
  • Revolution or Reform in Human Subjects Research Oversight
    Panelist Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, discusses “the system of prospective oversight of human subjects research” dating to 2012, before the release of the 2016 Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century report. Joffe outlines the criticisms of the system of human subjects research oversight and provides solutions.
  • Science Academies Blast US Government’s Planned Research-Ethics Reforms
    This article in Nature discusses the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine’s recommendation that the Department of Health and Human Services withdraw its proposed overhaul of the Common Rule. The Academies cited concern with the clarity of the proposed changes and proposed that the government create an independent commission to develop new rules for the research community

Panel I: 50 Years After Beecher’s Bombshell: Where Are We Now, What Have We Learned?
Monday, November 14, 11:30 AM–12:45 PM

  • “Ethics and Clinical Research” — The 50th Anniversary of Beecher’s Bombshell
    In this article, the authors, including the panelist Susan E. Lederer, PhD, detail the history of research and draw on Beecher’s “bombshell” paper “Ethics and Clinical Research.” The current state of ethics is discussed, and the authors imply that Beecher, if still alive today, might not be content with the current regulations regarding human subjects research.
  • Laying Ethical Foundations for Clinical Research
    Panelist Susan Lederer, PhD, et al. discuss the contributions of Beecher to the realm of research ethics around the world. The authors claim that Beecher’s work forced the medical community “to recognize that questionable research practices could be carried out, and even rewarded…and that careful attention to ethics should be part of every scientist’s approach to research.”
  • Henry Knowles Beecher and the Development of Informed Consent in Anesthesia Research
    Vincent J. Kopp, MD, explores Beecher’s life and research around informed consent and its impact on medical research in general and then more specifically on anesthesia research. Beecher published five notable articles on human subjects research issues. Kopp argues that Beecher’s work influenced the current human subjects research regulatory requirements.
  • Twenty-first Century Ethics of Medical Research Involving Human Subjects: Achievements and Challenges
    Antonios Tamaloukas, MD, et al. review the ethics of human subjects research and identify the importance of the “ethical character of the researcher.” The authors argue that the “most effective safeguard” in regards to protecting human subjects in medical research is to create medical researchers with an ethical character who know the ethics.

Panel II: Empirical Research About Attitudes on the Ethics of Research on Medical Practices
Monday, November 14, 11:30 AM–1:00 PM

  • A Comparison of Institutional Review Board Professionals’ and Patients’ Views on Consent for Research on Medical Practices
    Panelist Benjamin S. Wilfond, MD, et al. conducted online surveys with human subjects research professionals and adult patients to explore whether “institutional review boards’ [IRB] interpretations and applications of research regulations align with patients’ values.” They found that the majority of IRB professionals did not believe a patient’s clinician was the best party to obtain participant consent. However, most patients held the opposite view and preferred to speak about consent with their doctors.
  • Patient Perspectives on the Learning Health System: The Importance of Trust and Shared Decision Making
    Panelists Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, and Benjamin S. Wilfond, MD, et al. conducted focus groups studying patients’ attitudes and opinions on research on medical practices “in the context of usual care.” They discovered patients expect information about the research to be told to them by their physician and, in general, support this type of research. Their findings show the need to increase public education on variation of practice among doctors and “the need for a collaborative approach to the governance of research on medical practices that addresses core values of trust, transparency and partnership.
  • Attitudes Toward Risk and Informed Consent for Research on Medical Practices
    Panelists Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, and Benjamin S. Wilfond, MD, et al. measure “attitudes toward risk, informed consent, and willingness to participate” in several research scenarios involving randomization of customary medical practices and review of medical records. The researchers discovered that patients “prefer to be asked for permission to participate in observational and randomized research evaluating usual medical practices,” but are willing to give consent in other simpler methods than written consent.
  • Patient and Physician Views about Protocolized Dialysis Treatment in Randomized Trials and Clinical Care
    Panelist Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, and his co-researchers, conducted an interview-based study to determine physicians’ and patients’ views on ethics around clinical care and pragmatic trials. The authors discovered that “[p]atients’ concerns toward clinical trials were tempered by their desires for certainty for a positive outcome and for physician validation. Patients tended to believe that being informed about research was more important than the actual mechanism of consent, and most were content with being able to opt out from participating.” More studies need to be conducted to confirm these findings in other trial settings.
  • Patients' Views Concerning Research on Medical Practices: Implications for Consent
    Authors, including moderator Jeremy Sugarman, MD, MPH, MA, and panelist Kevin P. Weinfurt, PhD, analyzed the results of 12 focus groups looking at comparative effectiveness research. Participants were given hypothetical research studies to discuss, and common discussion themes included notification, authorization, and research design and conduct. The authors concluded that their results “suggest that effective policy and guidance will involve balancing different patients' interests and potentially different sets of interests for different types of research studies on usual medical practices.”

Panel III: Research with Children and Adolescents: Who and How Is the Decision Made to Participate?
Monday, November 14, 11:30 AM–12:45 PM

  • Assessing and Enhancing the Research Consent Capacity of Children and Youth
    Panelist Celia B. Fisher, PhD, and co-author Jean-Marie Bruzzese, PhD, conducted a study “to evaluate children’s, adolescents’, and college students’ understanding of their research rights in a study for which they had provided assent or consent[,]...to examine minor participants’ understanding of their rights in normative, nontreatment research[, and]…to assess the extent to which a brief lesson, The Research Participants’ Bill of Rights, could improve rights related consent capacities in normative, nontreatment research that employs more active and informed consent procedures.” The authors discovered that children younger than 10 years old do not fully understand their rights when participating in research and need guardian protections. Children between the ages of 10 and 15 years old are much closer, but not quite at the level of adult comprehension on research rights. Bruzzese and Fisher discuss how these results may impact informed consent practices in research.
  • Children's Competence for Assent and Consent: A Review of Empirical Findings
    Authors, including panelist Eric Kodish, MD, summarize literature surrounding “children’s competence for consent and assent in research and treatment settings.” Dilemmas are addressed concerning approaches to children’s informed consent and the implications for competence and interpretation of findings. Recommendations are made to address these dilemmas for future research with children.
  • Ethical Issues in Adolescent and Parent Informed Consent for Pediatric Asthma Research Participation
    Panelist Janet L. Brody, PhD, and co-authors examine literature addressing “knowledge, competence, volition, and financial compensation in the biomedical research decision-making of children, adolescents, and parents.” They discover that there are differences between adolescents and parents on several topics, including comprehension and appreciation of the risks associated with research and procedures. They also discover that financial compensation is an important factor in the decision process.
  • Communication of Randomization in Childhood Leukemia Trials
    Panelist Eric Kodish, MD, and co-authors conducted a multisite study examining the informed consent process in randomized clinical trials for childhood leukemia. The main objective of the study was to determine the understanding of parents after attending a conference specifically around the concept of randomization. They discovered that even after explanation, about half of the parents still did not understand randomization, leading to a problem in the informed consent process.
  • Self-Consent for HIV Prevention Research Involving Sexual and Gender Minority Youth (SGMY): Reducing Barriers through Evidence-Based Ethics
    Authors, including panelist Celia B. Fisher, PhD, conducted a project to look at how sexual and gender minority youth viewed the practice of guardian permission for a pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence trial. Investigators also examined sexual and gender minority youths’ capacity for truly informed consent in a PrEP adherence trial. They found that “results demonstrate [youths’] ability to self-consent to age- and population-appropriate procedures, and underscore the value of empirical studies for informing…IRB protections of SGMY research participants.”
  • Enrolling Adolescents in Asthma Research: Adolescent, Parent, and Physician Influence in the Decision-Making Process
    In this study, Panelist Janet L. Brody, PhD, and co-authors looked at how family and physician-investigators influence participation of adolescents in asthma clinical research studies. They discovered that parents’ decisions usually override an adolescent’s opinion on participation, but physician-investigators may be able to reduce the hesitance to participate from parents and enhance the adolescent’s decision-making autonomy.

Research Ethics Book Group Lunch and Book Signing: A Life Everlasting, The Extraordinary Story of One Boy’s Gift to Medical Science by Sarah R. Gray, MA
Monday, November 14, 12:45–2:00 PM

  • How My Son's Short Life Made a Lasting Difference
    In this TED Talk, Sarah R. Gray, MA, tells the story of her son’s terminal condition of anencephaly that was discovered before birth. She describes what it was like to know that her son wouldn’t live long and her decision to donate his organs to science.
  • A Life Everlasting, The Extraordinary Story of One Boy’s Gift to Medical Science
    In her book, Sarah R. Gray, MA, details what she learned about pediatric organ donation after she made the decision to donate her own son’s organs to science. She learned from researchers that such donations are invaluable and describes her efforts to work with researchers to bring more attention to this critical area. “She goes behind the scenes at organ procurement organizations, introducing skilled technicians for whom death means saving lives, empathetic counselors, and the brilliant minds who are finding surprising and inventive ways to treat and cure disease through these donations. She also shares the moving stories of other donor families.”
  • Elective Ventilation to Facilitate Organ Donation in Infants with Anencephaly: Perinatal Professionals’ Views and an Ethical Analysis
    This article explores professionals’ views in the United Kingdom about donation by infants with anencephaly. The authors discover that there does exist a supportive environment for donation and recommends the “provision of organ donation information as part of palliative care counseling for women carrying a fetus with a condition likely to be fatal in infancy.”
  • Donating Baby’s Body for Research Leads Washington Mother to Write Book
    This news article details the decision Sarah R. Gray, MA, made to donate her baby’s organs to research and the overall need for organ donations in research. Scientists who received Gray’s baby’s organs are quoted and detail the impact it had on their research.
  • Neonatal and Pediatric Organ Donation: Ethical Perspectives and Implications for Policy
    In this article, Anjit Ashok Sarnaik, MD, discusses the ethical concerns around organ donations from neonates and children. He says the “medical community must balance the principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice to ensure the best interest of the potential donor and to provide equitable benefit to society.”

Keynote Address: Patricia Furlong: “SUBJECTS” Matter: Burden of Participation for Children in Clinical Trials
Tuesday, November 15, 8:30–9:15 AM

  • Exercise and Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: Where We Have Been and Where We Need To Go
    This article details the work of a roundtable that was convened to begin a dialogue among physicians, scientists, and patient advocates to develop an action plan to learn more about how exercise affects Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Contributors included societal stakeholders, such as keynote speaker Patricia Furlong.
  • Mother Courage: A Family Tragedy and a Scientific Crusade
    This article details keynote speaker Patricia Furlong’s life working toward ending Duchenne muscular dystrophy disease and the challenges she has faced in the process. Her success is outlined in being able to receive research for funding and working with researchers and providers around the disease.
  • Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Genomic Science Translation: Workshop Summary
    This book summarizes the results of a 2012 workshop that the Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health hosted. In a chapter titled, “Role of Advocacy in Facilitating Translation of Basic Scientific Research,” Patricia Furlong’s work with the Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy (PPMD) is highlighted. The roundtable called for a reevaluation of research incentives due to the challenges PPMD has faced with the legal infrastructure of universities.

Panel IV: Echoes of Tuskegee in 2016? African Americans and Participation in Research
Tuesday, November 15, 2:00–3:15 PM

Panel V: Precision Medicine Initiative: What Are the Promises and What Are the Ethical Challenges?
Tuesday, November 15, 2:00–3:15 PM

  • Precision Medicine: Opportunities, Possibilities, and Challenges for Patients and Providers
    This article discusses precision medicine and the uncertainties that may come with it. Authors review both legal and ethical issues “related to the Precision Medicine Initiative’s proposed changes to current institutions, values, and frameworks.” The issues highlighted include: privacy, patient participation, and informed consent.
  • A Survey of US Adults’ Opinions About Conduct of a Nationwide Precision Medicine Initiative® Cohort Study of Genes and Environment
    David J. Kaufman, PhD, et al. detail the results of an online survey of US adults measuring attitudes about the Precision Medicine Initiative’s planned national cohort study. The study found that most participants supported the study and around 54% of respondents would participate in the study if recruited.
  • An Informatics Research Agenda to Support Precision Medicine: Seven Key Areas
    This article details seven areas that need to be further researched and developed in order to support precision medicine. Many of the seven areas address patient involvement and include: “facilitating electronic consent and specimen tracking”; “enhance[ing] EHRs [electronic health records] to promote precision medicine”; and encouraging consumer engagement.
  • The Role of Patient Engagement in Personalized Healthcare
    This article discusses potential ways to engage patients in personalized healthcare, including precision medicine. The authors advocate for the Iowa Institute of Human Genetics’ model of engaging patients that involves pre and post-test counseling. This method “allows patients and clinicians to co-create truly personalized healthcare that goes beyond the genotype.”
  • Health Care Should Be a Team Sport
    In this TED Talk, Eric Dishman, PhD, discusses his personal experiences with healthcare and the need and importance to put “the patient at the center of a treatment team.” He focuses on why customized care is important.

Panel VI: Re-Framing Informed Consent: Respecting Participants When Barriers to Regulatory Consent Exists
Tuesday, November 15, 2:00–3:15 PM

  • Exceptions to the Rule of Informed Consent for Research With an Intervention
    This study identifies “three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants” through literature reviews. The authors highlight the findings of the literature review to help other researchers determine when to submit a request to their IRB for an exception to the informed consent regulations.
  • Balancing Ethical Goals in Challenging Individual Participant Scenarios Occurring in a Trial Conducted With Exception from Informed Consent
    Panelists Neal Dickert, Jr., MD, PhD, Robert Silbergleit, MD, and co-authors discuss “a series of unanticipated consent-related questions arising when a potential surrogate decision-maker appeared to be available at the time of patient enrollment into a trial proceeding under EFIC [exception from informed consent].” Case studies are used to illustrate challenges specifically around ethics and the legally authorized representative.
  • Implementation of the Exception From Informed Consent Regulations in a Large Multicenter Emergency Clinical Trials Network: The RAMPART Experience
    Written by panelists Robert Silbergleit, MD, Neal Dickert, Jr., MD, PhD, and co-authors, this article investigates the challenges and opportunities involved with exception from informed consent regulations and multicenter clinical trials. Using the Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials network’s first exception from informed consent study (EFIC), RAMPART, the authors show “how EFIC may be effectively performed in established clinical trial networks.”
  • Ethics in Acute Care Research: A Global Perspective and Research Agenda
    This report details the results from the 2013 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference breakout session that discussed research ethics around global acute care, and in which panelist, Michelle H. Biros, MD, took part. The authors discuss “the complexities of determining and applying socially and culturally appropriate ethical principles during the conduct of global acute care research” through three case studies.
  • Empirical Evaluation of the Need for ‘On-Going Consent’ in Clinical Research
    Panelist Christine Grady, RN, PhD, and co-authors reviewed two surveys to determine whether participants remained informed about key study aspects over time. The authors found that even though participants were well informed at the time of the initial consent process, over time participants were no longer aware of important study aspects. The authors conclude “that clinical trials should consider including a process of ‘on-going consent.’”

Keynote Address: Joseph P. Garner, DPhil
Wednesday, November 16, 8:30–9:45 AM


Panel VII: Amplifying the Challenges: Return of Results in Pediatric Research
Wednesday, November 16, 9:45–11:00 AM

Panel VIII: Beyond Vulnerability, Toward Inclusion: Comparable Access for Women Across the Lifespan
Wednesday, November 16, 9:45–11:00 AM

  • Enrolling Pregnant Women: Issues In Clinical Research
    Panelist Christine Grady, RN, PhD, and co-authors summarize three ways to promote research in pregnant women that were discussed at the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health workshop in October 2010: “1) Reclassify pregnant women from their current status in regulations as a ‘vulnerable’ population to a scientifically ‘complex’ population and change the presumption of exclusion to one of inclusion; 2) examine the IRB’s gatekeeper role in interpreting regulations governing pregnancy research and identify steps to facilitate IRB approval of ethically informed pregnancy research; and 3) develop a pregnancy-focused research agenda that addresses pressing clinical needs, identifies opportunities to gather information from existing resources and studies, and encourages important new research areas.”
  • The Desperate Need to Include Pregnant Women in Clinical Research: Proposed Recommendations to Increase Enrollment of Pregnant Women in Research
    This paper examines the history of women enrolling in research, reviews today’s regulations on the subject, and identifies related concerns. The authors also “evaluate the current landscape of clinical research in pregnant women in order to demonstrate the consequences of the lack of scientific data.” They offer several recommendations to the federal rulemaking bodies.
  • The Second Wave: Toward Responsible Inclusion of Pregnant Women in Research
    Panelist Anne Drapkin Lyerly, MD, MA, and co-authors discuss the lack of “thoughtful discussion” on the ethical basis of pregnant women in research. This article outlines, “resulting knowledge gaps and their costs and then highlights four reasons why ethically we are obliged to confront the challenges of including pregnant women in clinical research.”
  • Expecting More
    This article details the problems researchers face when studying how Zika is passed from a mother to her baby during pregnancy. Researchers are still struggling with how to include pregnant women in drug and vaccine trials despite a shift in federal guidance encouraging that this population be included.
  • Performing Drug Safety Research During Pregnancy and Lactation: Biomedical HIV Prevention Research as a Template
    This report was developed by a group of experts who convened at the NIH to “to consider paradigms for drug research in pregnancy and lactation applicable to HIV prevention.” The group developed a framework to conduct research on candidate HIV prevention agent use both during pregnancy and lactation.
  • Exclusion of Pregnant Women From Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials
    Panelist Anne Drapkin Lyerly, MD, MA, and co-authors discovered that the practice of excluding pregnant women from industry-sponsored clinical trials is common. They suggest that “developing thoughtful criteria for inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research would likely advance the evidence base to inform treatment decisions during pregnancy and lead to better health outcomes for women and children.”


Panel IX: Can’t Buy Me Love, but Maybe a Clinical Trial Spot? How IRBs Wrestle With Participant Funding and Influence
Wednesday, November 16, 9:45–11:00 AM

  • Financial Relationships between IRB Members and Industry
    Moderator Melissa E. Abraham, PhD, MS, and co-authors conducted a study that surveyed IRB members on the financial relationships that members had with industry. They found that these relationships are common and “members sometimes participate in decisions about protocols sponsored by companies with which they have a financial relationship.”
  • A Desperate Injection of Stem Cells and Hope
    This news article discusses one man’s interactions with BioMark International, an experimental stem cell company that was investigated by the Food and Drug Administration. The company was accused of fraud and of promising false hope to patients suffering from terminal illnesses.
  • Clinical Research: Should Patients Pay to Play?
    In this article, panelist Govind Persad, JD, PhD, and co-authors discuss charging participants to be in a research study. They consider the ethical arguments for and against this possibility and conclude that “charging people to participate in research is likely to undermine the fundamental ethical bases of clinical research.”
  • “Childhood Alzheimer’s”: Parents Ferociously Fight the Cruel Disease Killing Their Daughter
    This news article details panelist, Glen O’Neill, and his wife’s path to creating the Cure Sanfilippo Foundation on behalf of their daughter. The couple raised millions of dollars after hearing about a clinical trial for a Sanfilippo syndrome treatment.
  • How the Wealthy Paying to be Guinea Pigs in Clinical Trials Could Help Cure Us All
    In this article, Alexander Masters, MA, argues the wealthy should be allowed to buy places in clinical trials. Masters believes his idea is ethical, in part, because he argues wealthy donors would have to pay for poor patients to also enroll in the trial they are personally funding.
  • Patient-Funded Trials: Opportunity or Liability?
    This article discusses the growing popularity of patient-funded trials “as a means of accelerating clinical translation.” The authors note that “such trials sidestep mechanisms that promote rigor, relevance, efficiency, and fairness.” As a result, they recommend that funders establish procedures for merit review of patient-funded research.


Closing General Session: Errors of Enthusiasm: Responsible Communication of Research Findings
Wednesday, November 16, 2:00–3:15 PM

  • Health News Review's Gary Schwitzer: Trying to Improve the Public Dialogue About Health Care
    In this video, panelist Gary Schwitzer, discusses healthcare journalism and improving the healthcare dialogue with the public. Using examples, Schwitzer discusses the role of Health News Review in evaluating and reviewing healthcare journalism.
  • Covering Medical Research: A Guide for Reporting on Studies
    In this guide for the Association of Health Care Journalists and Center for Excellence in Health Care Journalism, panelist Gary Schwitzer, discusses the best ways for journalists to analyze and write about clinical research. He prefaces the report by noting “sometimes, what’s important is reporting the problems, limitations and backstory of a study.”
  • Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study
    This study analyzes press releases for the presence of “spin” which is “defined as specific reporting strategies (intentional or unintentional) emphasizing the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment.” The researchers discovered that the use of “spin” was seen in about half of the press releases and media coverage that they analyzed.
  • Translating Research into News
    This article examines the content of medical journal press releases given to the media looking at reported study limitations, main effects using numbers, differences between study groups, corresponding base rates, and exaggeration of findings. Of the press releases examined, the authors discovered that “press releases do not routinely highlight study limitations or the role of industry funding” and “data are often presented using formats that may exaggerate the perceived importance of findings.”
  • Promoting Healthy Skepticism in the News: Helping Journalists Get It Right
    This article addresses the media’s exaggerated portrayal of risks and benefits discovered through research. The authors describes ways in which medical journals can assist journalists in better understanding research results.
  • Media Coverage of Medical Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News?
    Panelist Vinay K. Prasad, MD, MPH, and co-authors reviewed top newspapers and medical journals to determine “whether the media systematically covers stories of weaker study design.” They discovered that newspapers were more likely than journals to cover observational studies. The media also chose observational studies of “inferior quality” and covered medical research with weak methodology.
  • Vinay Prasad, MD Takes on Moonshots, Precision Medicine, Journalism & More
    Panelist Vinay K. Prasad, MD, MPH, is interviewed by fellow panelist Gary Schwitzer on a variety of topics. The two discuss how the media covers medical journals, how surrogate endpoints are over promoted, and the usage of words like “miracle” and “revolutionary.”
  • Introducing New Primer Series: Spotting and Responding to Hype
    This blog from the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues announces the Commission’s work on the best ways for the public to “spot and respond to hyped claims in the media.” The three primers focus specifically on media hype surrounding public health, new technology, and neuroscience. Panelist Lisa M. Lee, PhD, MA, MS, is the Executive Director of the Commission.
  • Scientific Studies: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
    In this video clip from HBO’s Last Week Tonight, John Oliver discusses “how and why media outlets so often report untrue or incomplete information as science.” He also describes how scientific data can be manipulated and the pressures researchers face.