Idaho Senate committee rejects resolution to reaffirm Nuremberg Code as state research standard

A Senate committee on Oct. 24 rejected Senate Concurrent Resolution 104, a nonbinding measure from Sen. Tammy Nichols that would have reaffirmed the Nuremberg Code as a foundation for ethical medical and scientific research in Idaho.

Nichols, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee the resolution “reaffirms Idaho's commitment to ethical medical and scientific research by recognizing the Nuremberg Code as the foundation for protecting human rights.” She said the measure is advisory only, carries no fiscal impact and “encourages Idaho's medical, academic, and research institutions to follow these recognized ethical guidelines.”

Supporters framed the resolution as a preventive measure to ensure informed consent, transparency and safeguards against harm as research technologies evolve. Nichols cited historical examples — the Nazi experiments that prompted the Nuremberg Code and later U.S. and international responses — and argued the state should “go back to those basics” as science advances into areas such as artificial intelligence and nanotechnology.

Opponents raised questions about the resolution’s references to international declarations and whether those references are necessary or appropriate. Senator Wintrow said the committee has previously resisted adopting standards from international organizations and asked why Idaho would “adopt foreign declarations” when the state already operates under U.S. and state medical and research laws. Senator Shippey cited UNESCO’s policy positions on abortion and said he was uncomfortable pointing to United Nations bodies as ethical standards for Idaho.

Several senators pressed Nichols for specific examples of Idaho statutes or policies that the resolution would change. Nichols and others repeatedly characterized the measure as declaratory and preventive rather than prescriptive; Nichols said she had no specific statutory edits in mind and that the resolution was intended to emphasize ethical principles such as voluntary consent and transparency.

Senator Blaylock pushed back on comparisons between COVID-era public health actions and the horrific human experiments that led to the Nuremberg Code, saying, “COVID was bad... But to say that it's the same, I don't see it at that level.” Nichols said she did not intend to equate COVID and Nazi experiments but meant to highlight persistent distrust in medicine and the need to guard ethical standards.

A motion to send SCR 104 to the floor with a “do pass” recommendation, moved by Senator Keizer and seconded by Senator Bridal Felder, failed on a roll call vote: 3 ayes, 6 nays. Vice Chair Pierke voted aye; Senators Wintrow, Van Orden, Blaylock, Shippy and others voted no. The committee chair announced the motion failed and moved to the next agenda item.

Because SCR 104 is advisory and contains no statutory language, committee members described it as a statement of values rather than a change in law. Proponents said the resolution would remind institutions and students of long-standing ethical principles; opponents said the resolution needlessly invokes international declarations and could create political controversy without creating enforceable standards.

With the motion defeated, the matter will not proceed to the Senate floor from this committee.