I find the phrase "trust with verification" to be internally illogical based on the common definition of the terms. "Trust" inherently involves the absence of the need for verification. (President Reagan - famous for this phrase - was right, in my judgment, not to trust the Soviet Union about nuclear arms deals. Using the word "trust" in these matters is disingenuous, although public international diplomacy invites such language.)
That aside, if one is sending sample for analysis, and paying on per sample basis, I think that it is fine to send along "test samples" that assess the accuracy of the testing procedure. The "cost per sample" factor eliminates the abuse of time and trust that would otherwise be involved in sending a "fake" chemical in a list of possible chemicals to be assessed by a physician for lab use by one of their patients. This is a subterfuge that seems entirely rude and disrepectful if not even unethical. Other CHAS list contributors have already commented, correctly, on this aspect of such a strategy.
Let's build bridges and relationships, not undermine them.
David C. Finster
Professor, Department of Chemistry
University Chemical Hygiene Officer
I would call it "trust with verification". When I send samples for analysis, I always include an unidentified blank. ... Jim
Laboratory Safety Institute (LSI)
-------- Original message --------
From: Ben Ruekberg <bruekberg**At_Symbol_Here**CHM.URI.EDU>
Date: 09/04/2015 6:05 PM (GMT+07:00)
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Waiver Form Example
An ethical question occurred to me.
Assuming a student wishes to consult their physician regarding which experiments they should ask to be excused, would it be ethical to insert in the information an experiment which will not be performed but which calls for the use of a teratogenic, mutagenic or allergenic compound? If the physician fails to identify this "experiment" as proscribed, their competence to advise should be called into question. This could be valuable information. On the other hand, it involves deception.
Does this fall under the rubric of human experimentation without proper informed consent, taking the physician's time unnecessarily, or simply a bad idea?
Any thoughts, politely stated, would be welcome.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post