clinical research

“It never made sense for the DEA to list marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Making it a Schedule III controlled substance will make researching the drug’s medicinal uses easier. But it still makes federal criminals of the millions of adults who have been using marijuana recreationally for millennia and makes as much sense as it does to require people to get a prescription to ingest beer, wine, or whiskey.”
It’s a sad fact that minorities and women are underrepresented in clinical trials. As to why- that’s still a mystery. One thing is probable though; there’s some cultural mismatch between recruiters and the recruited. A recent study proposed a solution: simply pay minorities to participate. Is this valid – or another example of noblesse oblige – and cultural chauvinism?
In 1997, the BMJ reported that GlaxoSmithKline had withheld data in a clinical trial, specifically, that Paxil was ineffective in adolescents and often caused suicidal thoughts. From the subsequent justifiable uproar rose, a registry for clinical trials requiring the posting of their results when the study was completed. A new study shows that this regulation is routinely ignored. And like a labradoodle, is all bark and no bite. 
How can physicians, in the care of their patients, translate research findings into useful information? P-values suggest differences, not effects. But could there be a simple solution?