<< Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Case: Violation of Confidentiality Researchers cloned and sequenced the gene for Interleukin I. They sent off a paper to Nature, very excited about their great result. Their work was funded by the Cistron Corporation. A faculty member associated with Immunex had a reviewer on the paper that the above group claims held up the paper and used key information it contained to clone and sequence the same gene. Even though there never was a market for a product from this gene, Cistron is suing because Immunex got venture capital funding on the basis of the gene and because it became a strong competitor due to that funding. $100,000,000 is at stake here. Immunex responded that Cistron had cloned something different, that they were suffering a loss of reputation due to a deliberate misleading reading of the facts and is countersuing. The core question could turn on what degree of confidentiality is appropriate (the norm) for peer reviews? Rules have become more explicit. What should they be? << Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Chapter 2 Quick Links Research in Humans History of Rules About Research in Humans Definitions Federal Mandate Respect for Persons Beneficence Justice Common Rule IRB Mission Cases Bibliography Chapter 2 Download (PDF)