How are human subjects treated in biomedical research? What are the expressed standards and self-reported behavior of biomedical researchers in regard to what has sometimes been called their “animal of necessity”? What are some of the determinants of the “strict” and “permissive” patterns which describe the standards and behavior of biomedical researchers? These are the important questions asked and answered in Research on Human Subjects. It is a book based on four years of intensive research. Two studies were completed, one on a nationally representative sample of biomedical research institutions, a second on a sample of 350 researchers who actually use human subjects.

In their chapters on “the dilemma of science and therapy,” the authors look at the tension between the values of humane therapy and discovery in science. They show that the significant minority of researchers who are “permissive” on the issues of informed consent and a favorable risk-benefit ratio are more likely to be those who are “relative failures” in pursuing the science value.

Research on Human Subjects also documents the inadequate training that biomedical researchers get in the ethics of research on human subjects not only in medical schools but in their postgraduate training as well. The medical schools pay relatively more attention to the scientific training of their students than they do to the ethical training that should be its essential complement.

The local peer review groups that screen research on human subjects in the institutions where it is carried on are another central focus of attention of the research and analysis reported in this book. The peer review groups do a fairly good job but, the authors show, there are various conditions of their relative efficacy which are not met by review groups in many important research institutions. The medical school review groups, for example, have not been outstanding performers with respect to the several conditions of relative efficacy.

In the concluding chapter, the authors discuss the general problem of the social responsibilities of powerful professions and make very specific suggestions for policy change and reform for the biomedical research profession and its use of human subjects.

BERNARD BARBER is on the Barnard College and Graduate Faculties of Columbia University.

JOHN J. LALLY is at Lehman College, CUNY.

JULIA LOUGHLIN MAKARUSHKA is at Barnard College, Columbia University.

DANIEL SULLIVAN, formerly of Barnard College, now teaches at Carleton College.

Over the last forty years, rising national income has helped reduce poverty rates, but this has been accompanied by an increase in economic inequality. While these trends are largely attributed to technological change and demographic shifts, such as changing birth rates, labor force patterns, and immigration, public policies have also exerted a profound affect on the welfare of Americans. In Public Policy and the Income Distribution, editors Alan Auerbach, David Card, and John Quigley assemble a distinguished roster of policy analysts to confront the key questions about the role of government policy in altering the level and distribution of economic well being.

Public Policy and the Income Distribution tackles many of the most difficult and intriguing questions about how government intervention—or lack thereof—has affected the incomes of everyday Americans. Rebecca Blank analyzes welfare reform, and presents systematic research on income, poverty rates, and welfare and labor force participation of single mothers. She finds that single mothers worked more and were less dependent on public assistance following welfare reform, and that low-skilled single mothers had no greater difficulty finding work than others. Timothy Smeeding compares poverty reduction programs in the United States with policies in other developed countries. Poverty and inequality are higher in the United States than in other advanced economies, but Smeeding argues that this is largely a result of policy choices. Poverty rates based on market incomes alone are actually lower in the United States than elsewhere, but government interventions in the United States were less than half as effective at reducing poverty as were programs in the other countries. The most dramatic poverty reduction story of twentieth century America was seen among the elderly, who went from being the age group most likely to live in poverty in the 1960s to the group least likely to be poor at the end of the century. Gary Englehardt and Jonathan Gruber examine the role of policy in alleviating old-age poverty by estimating the impact of Social Security benefits on the income of the elderly poor. They find that the growth in Social Security almost completely explains the large decline in elderly poverty in the United States.

The twentieth century was remarkable in the extent to which advances in public policy helped improve the economic well being of Americans. Synthesizing existing knowledge on the effectiveness of public policy and contributing valuable new research,Public Policy and the Income Distribution examines public policy's successes, and points out the areas in which progress remains to be made.

ALAN J. AUERBACH is Robert D. Burch Professor of Economics and Law at the University of California, Berkeley.

DAVID CARD is Class of 1950 Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley.

JOHN M. QUIGLEY is I. Donald Terner Distinguished Professor and professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley.

CONTRIBUTORS: Rebecca M. Blank,  Dora L. Costa,  Janet Currie,  Gary V. Engelhardt,  Jonathan Gruber,  Matthew E. Kahn, Steven Raphael,  Emmanuel Saez,  Jonathan Skinner,  Timothy M. Smeeding,  Weiping Zhou.   

This study contains fifty-eight documents from forty-nine different foundations, selected to represent a wide variety of these organizations. Included are documents from at least one perpetuity, dissolving fund, discretionary perpetuity; at least one company-sponsored foundation, family foundation, foundation engaged in unrelated business activities, association of foundations, "captive" foundation; at least one research foundation, special-purpose foundation, community trust scholarship fund. Several documents have been included for historical interest; documents of two foreign foundations for their comparison values. A final chapter introduces certain operational documents: grant notification form, agreement with consultants, outline for grant applicants, publication agreement.

F. Emerson Andrews was director of publications at the Russell Sage Foundation.

CONTRIBUTORS: James Coleman, James Davis, Beverly Duncan, Otis Dudley Duncan, Mark Evans, David L. Featherman, Robert M. Hauser, Kenneth C. Land, Judah Matras, David D. McFarland, Aage B. Sorenson, Seymour Spilerman, Arthur Stinchcombe, Richard Stone, Kermit Terrell, Donald J. Treiman, James Wendt, H.H. Winsborough.