I'm sorry to burst your bubble Skybird, but a quick search reveals the real extent of this newest scare (however your criticism of loobyism is as welcome as always, in fact you should be glad the the EP managed to force the Commission to commit to greater transparency as regards its experts groups in order to make sure that not only business interest are represented).
Now back the proposal at hand. Everything you wish to find on this subject is available
here, more precisely, the heading "Revision of Clinical Trials Directive". While I admit I only had a quick glance (read: used search function of the word 'ethic'), the best I could come up with is that ethical considerations are left under the control of MEMBER STATES and that in all cases of experimentation, consent must be given by the person undergoing the tests.
I admit, there might be something else far more insidious hidden inside the Regulation proposal, which may still be modified by the EP and the Council, so you have plenty of time to get someone to remove the offending article. If you really want, you can demand that the German parliament declares the Regulation to be against the principle of subsidiarity, although I am doubtful your claim would stand considering this Regulation relates to the Internal market.
@Tribesman: Since I know that Sky ignores your posts, I find it unnecessary to constantly attack his persona. You don't agree with his arguments, fine, people rarely do. But please make an effort to engage him/other readers in a serious discussion and not mock people. If you find that difficult, just let the matter slide or even better, write a counter topic. It would make things far easier for all of us, if we could avoid generalisations.