Muddiwarx wrote:What then about those who did face their fears of blood tests, cancel plans, swap work shifts, spend savings travelling etc....
Does the fact that they felt the need to do so, for the good of the fancy sway results and ethics of the tests? No one went because they love giving blood I'm sure ...
Surely anyone who went, went because they felt they ought to??? Not just for fun.
I've never heard the theory that people feeling guilty or feeling that they should do something will mess up the results of a test??
Hi Muddiwarx
I am sorry if you felt I was getting at you - that wasn't my intent.
Please believe me when I say I am all in favour of people taking part - medical research cannot happen without volunteers so everyone involved in making a wonderful contribution. Believe me when I tell you that I genuinely do not believe I would be alive today were it not for participants in medical research - these people are heroes!
Any sense that people were pressurised into taking part can result in a trial being lost (there are very strict laws on this that were put in place after WW2). In the UK clinical studies teams have to demonstrate, and will be audited, on making sure all participants gave full informed consent to take part. This means that they understood all the implications and risks of participating and did so by free choice without any pressure.
From my interpretation, any intimation that any individual should feel guilty about not participating could be seen as pressurising potential participants and the way I interpreted your comments meant I read them as inferring this (my interpretation, so if this wasn't your intention, I am sorry). If the study team were seen to be recruiting participants who were under pressure to participate, they would have to exclude their results. As this is an anonymous study, identifying those participants who were recruited here, after the posts of concern, might not be possible. As such, they would thus be bound by ethics to disregard any participants that MIGHT have come from here. Worst case scenario - they have to start again and perhaps their funding doesn't cover that? Because medical research legislation here in the UK is so strict (and I would say, the very best and safest in the world as a result) study teams have to take an extremely cautious approach. Perhaps I am being over cautious, and if you felt I was getting at you, I am sorry. That really wasn't my intention.
I posted from a desire to protect a study that I believe is of huge importance to our love of rats. It is really clear from your posts that you too feel this study is hugely important too. Saying that people shouldn't be pressurised into taking part doesn't mean that we can't say that those who do are heroes! You're absolutely right that many people who take part in research do so because they want to help, not because they enjoy it. This is one of the reasons why the rules around informed consent are so fuzzy and delicate. Without participants with a sense of duty and responsibility, we'd be stuck! But informed consent relies on the fact that this moral sense of duty is self generated, not motivated by anyone else. And believe me, I totally agree that this is impossible to prove!!!
I am truly sorry if any offence was caused and should have explained my concerns in more depth in my original post. It certainly wasn't my intention to offend you and I am sorry that I have.
ex-lab boys Boxer and Spot and 
old girl Jess.
42 storytellers loved and lost, most recently : Washburn 
Im sure the rat population doesn't recognise pseudo-borders, lol.
