In the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial of 1946/47, some of the Nazi doctors who had committed crimes against humanity were prosecuted and sentenced. The trial has a historical significance far beyond its original remit. It established the influential “Nuremberg Code”, a set of ethical principles for human experimentation, emphasizing ethical imperatives to avoid harm to patients and study participants. The code then formed the basis for formal ethical guidelines across the world.
Three of the key features of the Code include:
- The human subject must give voluntary, informed consent before participating in a medical experiment.
- The experiment must be designed to yield results that are for the good of society.
- The experiment must be conducted by scientifically qualified persons who possess adequate training and skills.
As these principles have become generally accepted, it might be interesting to ask whether they are also implemented in research of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Here are my impressions based on the many studies I have reviewed on this blog:
- As I have repeatedly pointed out, fully informed consent may not even be possible in all areas of SCAM research. (In clinical practice, it is very often neglected, simply because patients would run a mile, if they knew what questionalbe treatment is being proposed.)
- Societal benefit of testing highly implausible SCAMs is frequently doubtful.
- SCAM researchers are frequently not scientifically qualified but, as we have seen with depressing regularity, they often abuse science not to test but to confirm their beliefs.
As mentioned, the principles of the ‘Nuremberg Code’ were incorporated in virtually all national ethical guidelines that exist today. They apply to medical research in all areas. This, of course, also includes SCAM! Yet, as I have often pointed out on this blog and elsewhere, in the realm of SCAM, they are frequently ignored. I find this increasingly intolerable and therefore appeal once again to SCAM researchers, funders, journal editors, reviewers and everyone else concerned to make sure that the basic principles of medical ethics are not violated by SCAM research.
5 Responses to The Nuremberg Code: is it being followed by researchers of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Conducting an investigation involving medical professionals and scientific literature could help restore ethical guidelines and rebuild trust—whether in homeopathy or pharmaceuticals.
Far too many scientific papers have been retracted, raising concerns about the reliability of published research.
“More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 – a new record”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38087103/
Daily briefing: Landmark Alzheimer’s paper will be retracted
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01699-w
WithdrarXiv’ database of 14,000 retracted preprints launches
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00011-8
I’d say far too few have been retracted and far too many should be!
The gatekeepers are of course the ethics committees. There is generally no oversight of those. In my limited experience there is no way of effectively challenging an incorrect decision by a committee.
I think that many SCAM studies were never submitted to an ethic committee.
Those that are submitted, are too frequently reviewed by incompetent committees.
In my case, when I reported lab results showing that the iron content in the apartment’s tap water was three times over the acceptable limit, and that the particles present made it unsuitable for consumption, the gatekeepers and the German health department blamed me instead.