Literature DB >> 28661730

A Proposed Process for Reliably Updating the Common Rule.

Benjamin E Berkman1, David Wendler2, Haley K Sullivan2, Christine Grady2.   

Abstract

The recent Common Rule revision process took almost a decade and the resulting changes are fairly modest, particularly when compared to the ambitious ideas proposed in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) and notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Furthermore, the revision process did not even attempt to tackle any of the Common Rule subparts pertaining to vulnerable populations (i.e., pregnant women and fetuses, prisoners, children) where commentators think the rules unduly restrict important research. We believe that this was a missed opportunity to make desirable changes, and that given the usual process the next opportunity to revisit the Common Rule is unacceptably remote. In this article, we argue that the Common Rule should be regularly reassessed, with a mechanism for making substantive (and expeditious) changes. Drawing on lessons learned from the recent revision process, we make recommendations about ways to structure future attempts to maximize the ability to make timely and necessary changes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Common Rule; framework legislation; public consultation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28661730      PMCID: PMC6010315          DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1329478

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Bioeth        ISSN: 1526-5161            Impact factor:   11.229


  19 in total

1.  Accountability for reasonableness.

Authors:  N Daniels
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-11-25

2.  Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers.

Authors:  Norman Daniels; James Sabin
Journal:  Philos Public Aff       Date:  1997

3.  The impact of HIV infection on society's perception of clinical trials.

Authors:  R J Levine
Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J       Date:  1994-06

Review 4.  Genomic medicine--an updated primer.

Authors:  W Gregory Feero; Alan E Guttmacher; Francis S Collins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Streamlining ethical review.

Authors:  Joseph Millum; Jerry Menikoff
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Confronting Biospecimen Exceptionalism in Proposed Revisions to the Common Rule.

Authors:  Holly Fernandez Lynch; Barbara E Bierer; I Glenn Cohen
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.683

7.  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

8.  The Common Rule, Updated.

Authors:  Jerry Menikoff; Julie Kaneshiro; Ivor Pritchard
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-01-19       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  Disruptive Influences on Research in Academic Pathology Departments: Proposed Changes to the Common Rule Governing Informed Consent for Research Use of Biospecimens and to Rules Governing Return of Research Results.

Authors:  Mark E Sobel; Jennifer C Dreyfus
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 4.307

10.  The second wave: Toward responsible inclusion of pregnant women in research.

Authors:  Anne Drapkin Lyerly; Margaret Olivia Little; Ruth Faden
Journal:  Int J Fem Approaches Bioeth       Date:  2008
View more
  2 in total

1.  The Indefinite "Stay" on Regulatory Reforms for Research With Prisoners.

Authors:  Elaine Huang; Jennifer K Wagner
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 11.229

2.  Genomics, Big Data, and Broad Consent: a New Ethics Frontier for Prevention Science.

Authors:  Celia B Fisher; Deborah M Layman
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2018-10
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.