Taking pills is perhaps our most habitualized routine for engaging with medicine’s institutions. Our interpretations of this act are filtered through experiences. We may base our evaluation of these drugs on test results, seeing that one raises our “good” cholesterol and another lowers the “bad” version. Or we may warily credit a drug for sensations also felt and reported by others in the echo chamber of an Internet bulletin board. Finally, we may treat drugs with suspicion—for example, after having switched doctors and been asked to triple the number of pills to ingest for a chronic condition. When Experiments Travel focuses on the apparatus that crafts our scientific knowledge about these pills. In the process, Adriana Petryna provides a glimpse of recent research in the anthropology of science and medicine, describing and analyzing the contract research organizations (CROs) that develop randomized clinical trials. Her goal is to examine the relationship between these CROs and local health systems in the United States, Poland, and Brazil. Her claim is that CROs influence patients according to a logic of “experimentality,” a concept probably based upon but curiously not referencing Foucault’s “governmentality.” The argument is that international legal mandates, national regulatory agencies, and pharmaceutical companies are implicated in the development of both academic medical expertise and a citizenry dependent on trials for health care. Chapter 2 describes several challenges that CROs face in locating patients and the factors moving their search abroad, a process in which the state plays a primary role. The US Food and Drug Administration will not allow the pharmaceutical industry to conduct placebo-controlled trials when a similar drug is available. The industry is also forbidden from using prisoners as subjects—a common practice through the ’50s and ’60s, first considered unethical amidst scandals such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and ultimately abandoned after the release of the treatise on medical ethics eventually known as The Belmont Report. The resulting Qual Sociol (2010) 33:591–593 DOI 10.1007/s11133-010-9174-9