In order to determine the safety and value of substances that are to be used to create a change in human or anima conditions, various trials are necessary. Even cosmetic preparations can come into this category because they can influence the physiology of the body by being absorbed through the skin and hair. Trials usually begin with animals and progress to studies using human patients, once safety and reasonable chances of efficacy have been established.

There is little to criticize in the actual trials themselves, provided that they are carried out with the true aim of the trial in mind. This means that these trials should not just be thought of as routine procedures: they must take account of any special application that the substance under trial may have. They must also take into account both the specific nature of the substance and the specific purpose for which it is being used. This all sounds so obvious, but unfortunately trials are not always carried out this way. This can, of course, mean that a potentially valuable substance can be missed or given a false evaluation because of incompetence in trial application.

The interpretation of results

Perhaps the main faults in trial work come in the interpretation of results. In most scientific trials or survey work, once the structure of the trial system has been suitably established, the trial procedures are fairly simple and can be conducted by non-specialist staff. Where expertise and specialist training come in is the interpretation of the results produced by the trial. Unfortunately, even in some of the highly-rated establishments, errors in judgment and mismanagement creep in.

It might be argued that this is, after all, the kind of human error that occurs in all spheres of life. Agreed; but in these cases such errors can result in something of great value in the treatment of disease being incorrectly assessed and perhaps lost, to the detriment of thousands of afflicted people. There are also problems of corruption and bias, particularly when governmental and commercial interests are involved. Having pointed out, perhaps rather dramatically, the way in which trial results are so dependent on the character and ability of those who organize and interpret them, it might be as well to suggest a possible remedy for this disorder in the testing system.

Basically, there is no guaranteed remedy because there will always be corruption. If we ignore this aspect and concentrate on the more practical one of ability, then there are possibilities. Normally, the rating of a person or an establishment is based on ability, though not always. It is suggested that future assessment of potential, new, therapeutic substances will need to be done by assessors who have ability as well as knowledge. This means that they are able to apply their knowledge beyond the narrow confines of books of regulations. This will be a necessity in the future as we progress into the greater utilization of the earth’s resources for survival. This sort of comment is not so dramatic as it may sound. Just think for a moment of the world-wide change in energy and fuel policy over the last few years! The same may happen in medicine and nutrition, though perhaps to a lesser degree.

*23/48/5*