"Should regulators and policymakers distinguish between non-financial and financial conflicts of interests?
Yes, regulators and policymakers should distinguish between the non-financial and financial conflicts of interests since the two will always have either one or parallel interests and may lead to death as in the case of Jesse (Robin, 2009).
Distinguish between non-financial and financial conflicts of interests with regard to regulators and policymakers
With regards to both parties and financial conflicts of interest, they may be influenced by a drug testing company to neglect certain matters that are against the law. With regards to non-financial conflict of interest, they may stop the tests so as to ensure that they are not in the wrong light (Robin, 2009).
“Do you think the 1 sentence disclosure of the conflict was sufficient to alert a participant to the magnitude of the conflict?
No, this is because the 1 sentence disclosure did not give the clients adequate information. The sentence did not touch on the results of prior tests (Robin, 2009). I would improve the document by including the correct information so that when anyone is willing to take the tests he or she would know of the risks.
Agree or disagree with the disclosure
The disclosure that the clients received from the case was not sufficient enough and that may have been the sole reason that Jesse took part in the test. In addition to that, the parties that drafted the disclosure had both financial and non-financial interests. This made the disclosure invalid since it could not be fair (Robin, 2009).
Why the disclosure was or was not valid
The disclosure that was given to the client was not valid. A valid disclosure contains both the benefits and the negatives that the test might have done in earlier cases. According to the Gelsingers’ suit, the company had failed to give out the whole information and had only given out the information and had only disclosed the positive part of the information. This lured the subject into the deal. This is an unlawful act and is punishable by law. According to Wilson, he had financial interests in the study and this shows that the whole study was not legitimate and was marred by self interests and financial manipulations and that is why it was invalid. The only hint that Jesse got from the disclosure in the consent form was that Wilson, Genovo and Penn had financial interests hence they would not give out true information (Robin, 2009). This shows that the Jesse had a hint but still yet, it is not enough to give the validity to the disclosure hence in my opinion, the disclosure had numerous loopholes hence it was totally invalid.