Literature DB >> 9851484

Updating protections for human subjects involved in research. Project on Informed Consent, Human Research Ethics Group.

J Moreno1, A L Caplan, P R Wolpe.   

Abstract

For decades, all federally funded research involving human subjects has been subject to regulations that require the informed consent of the subject and oversight by the local institution. These regulations last underwent major revision in 1981 and have remained unchanged despite significant changes in the nature of clinical science, the financial sources of research support, and the institutional environment in which clinical research is conducted. In the intervening years, doubt has evolved as to whether the regulations currently in place adequately protect the welfare and rights of research subjects in today's clinical research environment and whether the costs, in terms of time, bureaucracy, and delay, are justified by the level of protection afforded. The Human Research Ethics Group, administered by the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania Health System, extensively reviewed the status of existing human subjects protections with the aim of making recommendations to improve and reform the regulations. Here, we present recommendations constituting a consensus of the group members for reform in 3 key areas: protecting subject populations with special needs and vulnerabilities, oversight by institutional review boards, and regulatory policy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Human Research Ethics Group; Legal Approach; National Bioethics Advisory Commission; Office for Protection from Research Risks

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9851484     DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.22.1951

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  21 in total

1.  A new look at international research ethics.

Authors:  S R Benatar; P A Singer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-09-30

2.  Research ethics in the era of personalized medicine: updating science's contract with society.

Authors:  Eric M Meslin; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Satisfaction with the decision to participate in cancer clinical trials is high, but understanding is a problem.

Authors:  M Jefford; L Mileshkin; J Matthews; H Raunow; C O'Kane; T Cavicchiolo; H Brasier; M Anderson; J Reynolds
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2010-02-23       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Success rates for consent and collection of prenatal biological specimens in an epidemiologic survey of child health.

Authors:  Omar A Abdul-Rahman; Beatriz Rodriguez; Sandra R Wadlinger; Julia Slutsman; Elizabeth B Boyle; Lori S Merrill; Jeffrey Botkin; Jack Moye
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2015-09-26

5.  Shifting paradigms in health services research ethics. Consent, privacy, and the challenges for IRBs.

Authors:  Eric M Meslin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial.

Authors:  H Silverman; S C Hull; J Sugarman
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 7.598

7.  Views and experiences of IRBs concerning research integrity.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 1.718

8.  Waiver of informed consent in prehospital emergency health research in Australia.

Authors:  Amee Morgans
Journal:  Monash Bioeth Rev       Date:  2010-03

9.  Protecting and respecting the vulnerable: existing regulations or further protections?

Authors:  Stephanie R Solomon
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2013-02

10.  Substitute consent for research involving the elderly: a comparison between Quebec and France.

Authors:  Gina Bravo; Anne-Marie Duguet; Marie-France Dubois; Cyrille Delpierre; Bruno Vellas
Journal:  J Cross Cult Gerontol       Date:  2008-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.