Literature DB >> 24459038

Proposed regulations for research with biospecimens: responses from stakeholders at CTSA consortium institutions.

Jeffrey R Botkin1, Rebecca Anderson, Tom Murray, Laura M Beskow, Karen Maschke, Leona Cuttler.   

Abstract

Secondary research with biospecimens acquired through clinical care and through research is often conducted without the informed consent of individuals from whom the specimens were acquired. While such uses are consistent with the current federal regulations, surveys of the general public suggest that many individuals would prefer more information and choice regarding research use of biospecimens. The federal government issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in 2011 that proposed a number of potential changes in the regulations governing human subjects. These proposed regulations are particularly pertinent to institutions committed to research involving human subjects-including institutions in the NIH-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium. In this study, we reviewed public responses by CTSA-funded institutions and CTSA-affiliated organizations and groups regarding the proposed changes in the ANPRM with respect to research with biospecimens. Our results indicate that the majority of responses to the ANPRM from CTSA institutions were not supportive of the proposed changes. While many responses acknowledge a need to change current research practices regarding biospecimens, the proposed changes in the ANPRM received only limited support from this subgroup of academic research institutions.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biospecimens; ethics; informed consent

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24459038      PMCID: PMC3960336          DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36365

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  12 in total

1.  Informed consent: a broken contract.

Authors:  Erika Check Hayden
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Two large-scale surveys on community attitudes toward an opt-out biobank.

Authors:  Kyle B Brothers; Daniel R Morrison; Ellen W Clayton
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking.

Authors:  Juli Murphy; Joan Scott; David Kaufman; Gail Geller; Lisa LeRoy; Kathy Hudson
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  State laws regarding the retention and use of residual newborn screening blood samples.

Authors:  Michelle H Lewis; Aaron Goldenberg; Rebecca Anderson; Erin Rothwell; Jeffrey Botkin
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects.

Authors:  Ezekiel J Emanuel; Jerry Menikoff
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-07-25       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research.

Authors:  David J Kaufman; Juli Murphy-Bollinger; Joan Scott; Kathy L Hudson
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Patients' views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research.

Authors:  Sara Chandros Hull; Richard R Sharp; Jeffrey R Botkin; Mark Brown; Mark Hughes; Jeremy Sugarman; Debra Schwinn; Pamela Sankar; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Brian R Clarridge; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 11.229

8.  Preferences for opt-in and opt-out enrollment and consent models in biobank research: a national survey of Veterans Administration patients.

Authors:  David Kaufman; Juli Bollinger; Rachel Dvoskin; Joan Scott
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples.

Authors:  E Vermeulen; M K Schmidt; N K Aaronson; M Kuenen; M-J Baas-Vrancken Peeters; H van der Poel; S Horenblas; H Boot; V J Verwaal; A Cats; F E van Leeuwen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Bioethics in popular science: evaluating the media impact of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks on the biobank debate.

Authors:  Matthew C Nisbet; Declan Fahy
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 2.652

View more
  2 in total

1.  A Proposed Process for Reliably Updating the Common Rule.

Authors:  Benjamin E Berkman; David Wendler; Haley K Sullivan; Christine Grady
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 11.229

2.  IRB practices and policies regarding the secondary research use of biospecimens.

Authors:  Aaron J Goldenberg; Karen J Maschke; Steven Joffe; Jeffrey R Botkin; Erin Rothwell; Thomas H Murray; Rebecca Anderson; Nicole Deming; Beth F Rosenthal; Suzanne M Rivera
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 2.652

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.