The Belmont Report at 40: Reckoning With Time.

It was the summer of 1972 when a stunned nation first learned of the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study, during which hundreds of poor, disease-stricken black men from Macon County Alabama, had been deliberately left untreated for 40 years. Coming on the heels of multiple, earlier examples of unethical human experimentation, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study made it plain that the moral foundation of human subject research was in desperate need of repair. Blind reliance on the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki was no longer going to suffice. It was against this backdrop that Congress resolved to act. Numerous hearings and multiple spirited discussions later, an agreement was struck to constitute the "Commission." The outgrowth of a retreat held at the Smithsonian Institution's Belmont Conference Center, the Belmont Report lays out a principled analytical framework to "guide the resolution of ethical problems arising from research involving human subjects." Durable and ever-present, the Belmont Report, which is the foundational document that reset the ethics of human subject research, must now reckon with all-important novel issues of the day that could not have been foreseen by its drafters.

Biospecimen research and the law.

In the well-known case of Henrietta Lacks, cells from her tumor were taken without consent and used more than 70 years ago to create the first immortal human cell line ("HeLa" cells). That event led to many scientific breakthroughs and to the debate about the ethics of consent and requirements for compensation. May 2024 saw two decisions by US federal courts-one related to Lacks-that could narrow the scope of research allowed on tissues obtained without consent and on nonidentified tissues, with implications for biomedicine.

Which patients are most challenging for second-year medical students?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Fostering appropriate attitudes toward patients begins with recognition of the physician's personal biases and preferences about patients. We sought to assist second-year medical students to identify those patient attributes that may influence their clinical behavior, especially in difficult patient encounters. This study's objectives were (1) to identify the principal patient characteristics reported by students to evoke negative or positive affective reactions sufficient to compromise the quality of patient care and (2) to examine differences between male and female students on these patient characteristics. METHODS: An anonymous survey was made of all second-year medical students attending a seminar on medical errors. Students recorded the three principal patient characteristics that might evoke in them a negative personal reaction sufficient to compromise the quality of clinical care. Students then recorded three principal patient characteristics that might evoke a positive reaction sufficient to compromise the quality of clinical care. The data were analyzed to identify the primary concerns of the entire group of students and any significant differences between male and female students. RESULTS: Information on negative attitudes was provided by 67 of 71 (94%) students and on positive attitudes by 70 of 71 (99%). Content analysis identified four general categories of patient characteristics associated with negative attitudes (patients who are rude, contributed to medical problem, are abusive to others, and other attributes). Five general categories (patients with whom students have personal connection or patients who have physical and/or social attractiveness, vulnerability, power/influence, and other) were associated with positive attitudes by the students. The leading patient attributes reported as likely to influence clinical behavior were the positive attributes of "personal connection" and "attractiveness." These were reported by 60% and 53% of the class, respectively, compared to the leading negative attributes of "rudeness" and "contributed to own condition," each reported by 51% of students. Significant differences between male and female students only occurred in the categories of "rude" and "attractive." CONCLUSIONS: Students are willing to disclose specific, personal attitudes toward patients that they perceive as sufficiently serious to influence the quality of clinical care. More than half of the students anticipated difficulty in providing optimal care to patients who exhibit certain characteristics. More students reported concerns about positive affective reactions to patients than about negative reactions. Medical education should address these issues in strategies to adequately prepare students for practice.