Question to suit.
It just doesn't apply, due to wording.
Makes no sense why there's no law, or does it?
Makes no sense why there's no law, or does it?
§46.120 Evaluation and disposition of applications and proposals for research to be conducted or supported by a Federal Department or Agency.
(a) The department or agency head will evaluate all applications and proposals involving human subjects submitted to the department or agency through such officers and employees of the department or agency and such experts and consultants as the department or agency head determines to be appropriate. This evaluation will take into consideration the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained.
(b) On the basis of this evaluation, the department or agency head may approve or disapprove the application or proposal, or enter into negotiations to develop an approvable one.
§46.122 Use of Federal funds.
Federal funds administered by a department or agency may not be expended for research involving human subjects unless the requirements of this policy have been satisfied.
§46.123 Early termination of research support: Evaluation of applications and proposals.
(a) The department or agency head may require that department or agency support for any project be terminated or suspended in the manner prescribed in applicable program requirements, when the department or agency head finds an institution has materially failed to comply with the terms of this policy.
(b) In making decisions about supporting or approving applications or proposals covered by this policy the department or agency head may take into account, in addition to all other eligibility requirements and program criteria, factors such as whether the applicant has been subject to a termination or suspension under paragraph (a) of this section and whether the applicant or the person or persons who would direct or has/have directed the scientific and technical aspects of an activity has/have, in the judgment of the department or agency head, materially failed to discharge responsibility for the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects (whether or not the research was subject to federal regulation).
With respect to any research project or any class of research projects the department or agency head may impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of approval when in the judgment of the department or agency head additional conditions are necessary for the protection of human subjects.
except that they still need subjects consent before proceeding, regardless of how they justify their research and how "necessary" it is.Look who is in charge of making sure they go over and regulate things. It literally says they weigh the gains of knowledge from the experiments. It's literally saying they justify it and it's okay.
This is from your citation. I'm telling you, this isn't an argument.
How is this for a GEM of a run on sentence that doesn't make sense...
(4) Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.116.
(5) Informed consent will be appropriately documented, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.117.
etc etc etc.§46.116 General requirements for informed consent.
Except as provided elsewhere in this policy, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by this policy unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence.
(a) Basic elements of informed consent. Except as provided in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, in seeking informed consent the following information shall be provided to each subject:
(1) A statement that the study involves research, an explanation of the purposes of the research and the expected duration of the subject's participation, a description of the procedures to be followed, and identification of any procedures which are experimental;
(2) A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject;
(3) A description of any benefits to the subject or to others which may reasonably be expected from the research;
(4) A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment, if any, that might be advantageous to the subject;
(5) A statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying the subject will be maintained;
(6) For research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation as to whether any compensation and an explanation as to whether any medical treatments are available if injury occurs and, if so, what they consist of, or where further information may be obtained;
(7) An explanation of whom to contact for answers to pertinent questions about the research and research subjects' rights, and whom to contact in the event of a research-related injury to the subject; and
(8) A statement that participation is voluntary, refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled, and the subject may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled.
i dont quote myself often but when i do im right.a lady was shot in the head at the tropicana inside the casino, and the front doors to the bellagio were shot out and replaced over night.
i heard this live that night on the scanner.
id like to chime in with this theory
the saudis as in the 911 saudis own the top two floors above the blown out windows room,
the security guard was originally up there because he got a stairwell door open emergency alarm and was checking it out.
how easy would it be for some saudi fuckers to go to the gun sale room do the unthinkable and inhuman like 911, shoot the patsey
in the chest and head, and zip up to the penthouses again and laugh as the stupid americans run around knowing full well the fbi
and cia will cover their tracks.
an even sicker twist involving management, is they sold the arabs the kill americans package
complete with fbi coverup and secure escape routes from private penthouse elevators.
you should have just said from the beginning. even if there is a punishable law i won't believe it.Still no law found. Oh well.
tell me why it isn't a law over it, you didn't last time, you just said "this isn't proof", yet there it sits as a federal regulation.It isn't denial. There aren't any laws.
If you think that's a law over it, you're smoking good stuff.