This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Related letter  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Medical Ethics  • Psychiatry, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic

Franklin G. Miller, PhD

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The recent article by Scott et al¹ presents valuable scientific results concerning the relationship between placebo and nocebo effects and the endogenous opioid and dopaminergic systems. From an ethical perspective, however, it can be characterized as deceptive research, deceptively described. Participants were deceived about the experimental design. It is reported that they were informed that "We are studying the effect of a pain relief medication" and that they would receive either this medication or placebo. In reality, they received only a placebo in connection with a pain stimulus. Additional deception derived from informing participants about possible adverse effects of the analgesic study medication, which was actually a placebo. Furthermore, it appears that participants were not told that the purpose of the study was to understand placebo and nocebo effects. The deceptive description of the research is reflected in 2 statements reported in the article. First, it . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

RELATED ARTICLE

Placebo and Nocebo Effects Are Defined by Opposite Opioid and Dopaminergic Responses
David J. Scott, Christian S. Stohler, Christine M. Egnatuk, Heng Wang, Robert A. Koeppe, and Jon-Kar Zubieta
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(2):220-231.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTER

Deceptive Research—Reply
Jon-Kar Zubieta
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(10):1226.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT