Literature DB >> 7491097

The institutional review board and beyond: future challenges to the ethics of human experimentation.

H Edgar1, D J Rothman.   

Abstract

Over the past two decades, institutional review boards (IRBs) have transformed the conduct of clinical research, in the process protecting human subjects and setting an admirable standard for monitoring the ethics of science. Nevertheless, the very proliferation of these committees, in addition to changing the character and sponsorship of new research, suggests that a ¿one size fits all¿ approach to the governance of human experimentation may have outlived its usefulness. It may be time to remove the ¿I¿ from the IRB and create a system with greater national oversight. Whether such a change can be accomplished within the current political climate is debatable. But the need for such a shift is becoming increasingly apparent.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Legal Approach; Twentieth Century

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7491097

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Milbank Q        ISSN: 0887-378X            Impact factor:   4.911


  13 in total

1.  Performance of research ethics committees in Spain. A prospective study of 100 applications for clinical trial protocols on medicines.

Authors:  R Dal-Ré; J Espada; R Ortega
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Towards a balanced approach to identifying conflicts of interest faced by institutional review boards.

Authors:  Sharon Kaur; Sujata Balan
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2015-10

Review 3.  Ethical issues in the development of new agents.

Authors:  C K Daugherty
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.850

4.  Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research.

Authors:  Lee A Green; Julie C Lowery; Christine P Kowalski; Leon Wyszewianski
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 5.  AOA Symposium. Barriers (threats) to clinical research.

Authors:  J L Marsh; William McMaster; Javad Parvizi; Stephen I Katz; Kurt Spindler
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Avoiding Exploitation in Phase I Clinical Trials: More than (Un)Just Compensation.

Authors:  Matt Lamkin; Carl Elliott
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  The role of community advisory boards: involving communities in the informed consent process.

Authors:  R P Strauss; S Sengupta; S C Quinn; J Goeppinger; C Spaulding; S M Kegeles; G Millett
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Partnering to harmonize IRBs for community-engaged research to reduce health disparities.

Authors:  Zoë H Hammatt; Junko Nishitani; Kevin C Heslin; M Theresa Perry; Carolyn Szetela; Loretta Jones; Pluscedia Williams; Donna Antoine-LaVigne; Nell G Forge; Keith C Norris
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2011

9.  Designing Oversight for Nanomedicine Research in Human Subjects: Systematic Analysis of Exceptional Oversight for Emerging Technologies.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Cortney Jones
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.253

10.  Using the IRB Harmonization and Reliance Document Can Reduce Review and Regulatory Delays for the Benefit of All.

Authors:  Stephen Sodeke
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 11.229

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.