title: On the impartiality of early British clinical trials.
abstract: Did the impartiality of clinical trials play any role in their acceptance as regulatory standards for the safety and efficacy of drugs? According to the standard account of early British trials in the 1930s and 1940s, their impartiality was just rhetorical: the public demanded fair tests and statistical devices such as randomization created an appearance of neutrality. In fact, the design of the experiment was difficult to understand and the British authorities took advantage of it to promote their own particular interests. I claim that this account is based on a poorly defined concept of experimental fairness (derived from T. Porter's ideas). I present an alternative approach in which a test would be impartial if it incorporates warrants of non-manipulability. With this concept, I reconstruct the history of British trials showing that they were indeed fair and this fairness played a role in their acceptance as regulatory yardsticks.
authors.affiliation: Dpto. de Lógica, Historia y Filosofía de la ciencia, UNED, Paseo de senda del rey 7, 28040 Madrid, Spain. dteira@fsof.uned.es
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Teira
mesh_terms: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000266:history* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D049673:History, 20th Century; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000266:history* / Q000592:standards; D013307:Streptomycin / Q000266:history* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D006113:United Kingdom
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D013307:Streptomycin
keywords: Clinical trials; Fair test; Impartiality; Streptomycin