The ethical review of medical research: a social movement to protect the interests of research subjects

This paper is based upon observations made in the United States regarding the operation of the Institutional Review Boards. Institutional Review Boards are an essential part of the American system for the ethical review of human subjects research and it is argued that their importance is due in part to the American approach to the protection of minority groups. It is important to evaluate the effectiveness of the Institutional Review Boards since a similar model is being proposed by the National Health & Medical Research Council as part of the ethical review of medical research projects conducted in Australia.     

Giving Voice to Research Participants: Should IRBs Hear From Research Participant Representatives?

The current decision-making model for the review of human research contains inadequate mechanisms to ensure that the interests and perspectives of research participants are considered by Institutional Review Boards, whose decisions may profoundly affect the safety and well-being of participants. As a result, this model is far from being optimized to realize Institutional Review Boards' principal mandate and undermines the credibility of the research review process. This article proposes a procedural mechanism that would ameliorate these systemic deficiencies by allowing “research participant representatives” to give voice to participants during the research review process.     

Giving voice to research participants: should IRBs hear from research participant representatives?

The current decision-making model for the review of human research contains inadequate mechanisms to ensure that the interests and perspectives of research participants are considered by Institutional Review Boards, whose decisions may profoundly affect the safety and well-being of participants. As a result, this model is far from being optimized to realize Institutional Review Boards' principal mandate and undermines the credibility of the research review process. This article proposes a procedural mechanism that would ameliorate these systemic deficiencies by allowing "research participant representatives" to give voice to participants during the research review process.     

Building a More Connected DSMB: Better Integrating Ethics Review and Safety Monitoring

Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) have become an increasingly common feature of clinical trial oversight, yet a paucity of legal or ethical frameworks govern these Boards’ composition or operation, or their relationship with other actors with monitoring responsibilities. This paper argues that prevailing structural gaps are impeding harmonized systems for monitoring the ongoing ethical acceptability of clinical trials. Particular tensions stem from DSMBs’ sweeping discretion in deciding whether and when to recommend that a trial should be terminated or amended based on safety and efficacy information. This discretion becomes especially challenging in light of DSMBs’ monopoly over emerging trial data, which prevents Institutional Review Boards, sponsors, and investigators from participating in certain pivotal and ethically charged decisions. To address these disconnects, I advocate for strengthened pre-trial and post-trial communication in addition to innovative strategies to support DSMB decision making through the life of a trial.     

Evaluating U.S. Medical Schools' Efforts to Educate Faculty Researchers on Research Integrity and Research Misconduct Policies and Procedures

This paper examines how well U.S. medical school institutions are doing to promote research integrity. It is an important question to ask in order to determine whether there are sufficient and adequate protections in place to protect the U.S. Public Health Service's (PHS) resources devoted to medical research. This paper focuses on 5,100 medical school researchers' knowledge of what constitutes research misconduct as well as their willingness to report it to the research integrity officer (RIO) and educate their Ph.D. trainees. We learned that 5.6% of researchers could correctly distinguish seven or more of the nine scenarios that depicted likely research misconduct, as defined by the PHS regulations, from scenarios describing other ethical issues. Instead, researchers had expansive definitions and often inappropriately identified infractions such as conflicts of interest, Institutional Review Board (IRB) violations, and other breaches in ethical standards to be research misconduct. In addition, researchers who correctly identified four instances of likely research misconduct in the test items were highly unlikely to report their observations to a RIO. Researchers also provided insight on the factors they believe influence their decision making process of whether to report research misconduct. In addition, this paper also reports on the guidance that faculty said they provided their trainees on research misconduct issues. We conclude with a discussion and recommendations on what institutional leaders might consider doing in order to enhance their research integrity efforts and protect their institution's reputation.     

Public Service Quality Improvements: A Case for Exemption from IRB Review of Public Administration Research

Should the exemption from Institutional Review Board (IRB) evaluations currently in place for quality improvements research be extended to public administration research that addresses questions of improving the quality of public service delivery? As a means to both reduce the level of disdain held by a group of social science researchers for IRBs and to reduce the cost of review for minimal risk studies, I argue here that much of the current public administration research should also be exempted from normal processes of review by IRBs on the basis of their similarity to Quality Improvements (QI) research, a category of studies already granted exemption. This argument dovetails provisions currently in place for studies of public service and public benefit, but reframes these exemptions in the language of “quality improvements,” which may be a more comfortable language for IRBs concerned to demonstrate compliance for review of all fields. To expedite this argument into the practices of IRBs, I included a checklist that researchers could use to self-identify their studies as QI, not research as such.     

Defining the Research Category in Pediatric Phase I Oncology Trials

Clinical research studies in children are classified by risk into three major categories. These are as follows: a) minimal risk studies, b) more than minimal risk studies but with benefit, and c) studies with minor increase over minimal risk but with no benefit.

Pediatric Phase I oncology trials, which are conducted in a highly vulnerable population of severely ill children with cancer, are designed to establish safety and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), as well as establish dose limiting toxicity (DLT). These types of studies can be associated with significant risk. The research design of such high- risk studies, which comprise short-term treatments with varying doses, is generally not associated with any clinical benefit. Classification of the research category in these pediatric studies poses a special problem for the Institutional Review Board (IRB) with major implications for the consenting process. The challenges associated with the classification of such studies are discussed in this article.     

Neurobiological research involving human subjects: Perspectives from the office for protection from research risks

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations at 45 CFR 46 require that all human subjects research supported by HHS be reviewed and approved by a local Institutional Review Board (IRB). Investigators may not involve human subjects in research without their informed consent, and additional safeguards are required when subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence. Application of the regulations to neurobiological research is discussed.     

Scientific evidence and the judicial system

Research involving the vulnerable sick raises difficult challenges for investigators and Institutional Review Boards. Exactly who among the ill counts as vulnerable is a matter of judgement, and involves consideration of susceptibility to harm and capacity to provide free and informed consent. A balanced approach is required when protections are considered, and the benefits as well as the risks of research participation must be carefully weighed. A variety of protections for the vulnerable sick in research are available, including enrolling subjects in a study only with a strong justification, ensuring that consent is free and comprehending, and setting limits on the risk to which they may be asked to endure. Discussion of three contemporary controversies, placebo‐controlled trials in the psychiatric setting, phase I clinical trials and oncology patients, and emergency room research involving patients incapable of giving consent, highlights the little recognized prominence of risk‐benefit issues in the clinical studies in the vulnerable sick.     

Unethical Research and the C.I.A. Inspector General Report of 2004: Observations Implicit in Terms of the Common Rule

Declassification of documents has given rise to the allegation that the Central Intelligence Agency may have conducted unethical research targeting detainee subjects. That allegation is examined using document analysis and the development of research goals and roles as defined in the Common Rule. This article sets aside issues as to whether enhanced interrogation techniques described in the declassified documents rise to legal definitions of torture. Instead, it presents a post hoc ethics review raising questions addressed by Institutional Review Boards recommending the filing of a for-cause noncompliance complaint with the Office for Human Research Protection against the Central Intelligence Agency.     

Disclosing Conflicts of Interest to Research Subjects: An Ethical and Legal Analysis

In this article, I examine the ethical and legal issues related to disclosure of conflicts of interest to research subjects, and discuss some empirical studies related to the topic. I argue that researchers have an ethical obligation to disclose conflicts of interest to research subjects, provided that they take steps to help subjects understand information about conflicts of interest and how to interpret it. Researchers also may have a legal duty to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects, depending on the facts of the case and the court's interpretation of the law. To reinforce and clarify the legal obligation to disclose conflicts of interest, the federal regulations should be amended to include disclosure of conflicts of interest as one of the informed consent requirements. Institutional review boards play a key role in helping researchers to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects in an appropriate manner. Institutional review boards should approve the disclosure language in informed consent documents, and they should require researchers to disclose financial interests to research subjects, if they have any, as a condition of approval.     

Disclosing conflicts of interest to research subjects: an ethical and legal analysis

In this article, I examine the ethical and legal issues related to disclosure of conflicts of interest to research subjects, and discuss some empirical studies related to the topic. I argue that researchers have an ethical obligation to disclose conflicts of interest to research subjects, provided that they take steps to help subjects understand information about conflicts of interest and how to interpret it. Researchers also may have a legal duty to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects, depending on the facts of the case and the court's interpretation of the law. To reinforce and clarify the legal obligation to disclose conflicts of interest, the federal regulations should be amended to include disclosure of conflicts of interest as one of the informed consent requirements. Institutional review boards play a key role in helping researchers to disclose conflicts of interest to subjects in an appropriate manner. Institutional review boards should approve the disclosure language in informed consent documents, and they should require researchers to disclose financial interests to research subjects, if they have any, as a condition of approval.     

An opinion and practice survey on the structure and management of data and safety monitoring boards

There is little to no empirical data available on how data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) are structured and how they operate. The purpose of this study was to provide data on this. To accomplish this goal, we administered a random survey on current structure and management practices and opinions as reported by principal investigators (PIs) and biostatisticians. We also surveyed Institutional Review Board (IRB) community members, as proxies for the public, as to their opinions on how DSMBs should be structured and managed. A final purpose was to compare opinions about what should be taking place to what is actually happening.     

Reflexive Research Ethics in Fetal Tissue Xenotransplantation Research

For biomedical research in which the only involvement of the human subject is the provision of tissue or organ samples, a blanket consent, i.e., consent to use the tissue for anything researchers wish to do, is considered by many to be adequate for legal and Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements. Alternatively, a detailed informed consent provides patients or study participants with more thorough information about the research topic. We document here the beliefs and opinions of the research staff on informed consent and the discussion-based reflexive research ethics process that we employed in our fetal tissue xenotransplantion research on the impact of environmental exposures on fetal development. Reflexive research ethics entails the continued adjustment of research practice according to relational and reflexive understandings of what might be beneficent or harmful. Such reflexivity is not solely an individual endeavor, but rather a collective relationship between all actors in the research process.     

Comparison of conflict of interest policies and reported practices in academic medical centers in the United States

The authors reviewed the conflict of interest policies of 9 academic medical centers in the United States and interviewed members of the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Conflict of Interest Committees (COICs) at those institutions. They found that many institutions used processes for reporting and managing conflicts of interest that were more decentralized than the processes described in their policies. Also, most institutions had no clear and comprehensive policy to guide investigators regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest to potential research participants. Considerable differences in understanding of conflict of interest policies were observed between IRB and COIC officials.     

Comparison of Conflict of Interest Policies and Reported Practices in Academic Medical Centers in the United States

The authors reviewed the conflict of interest policies of 9 academic medical centers in the United States and interviewed members of the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Conflict of Interest Committees (COICs) at those institutions. They found that many institutions used processes for reporting and managing conflicts of interest that were more decentralized than the processes described in their policies. Also, most institutions had no clear and comprehensive policy to guide investigators regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest to potential research participants. Considerable differences in understanding of conflict of interest policies were observed between IRB and COIC officials.     

Research Subjects with Limited English Proficiency: Ethical and Legal Issues

In this article, we examine Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies, international guidelines, and federal regulations and guidance for dealing with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) research subjects. We show that federal and international guidance concerning this topic is insufficient, and there is considerable variation in IRB policies. While some IRBs have thorough and useful policies, others do not. Many IRBs do not provide researchers and IRB members with answers to several important questions relating to language barriers in research. We recommend that federal agencies, international organizations, IRBs, and researchers take steps to fill in the gaps in guidance and policy to help insure that LEP populations will receive equitable and ethical treatment in research.     

Research subjects with limited English proficiency: ethical and legal issues

In this article, we examine Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies, international guidelines, and federal regulations and guidance for dealing with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) research subjects. We show that federal and international guidance concerning this topic is insufficient, and there is considerable variation in IRB policies. While some IRBs have thorough and useful policies, others do not. Many IRBs do not provide researchers and IRB member with answers to several important questions relating to language barriers in research. We recommend that federal agencies, international organizations, IRBs, and researchers take steps to fill in the gaps in guidance and policy to help insure that LEP populations will receive equitable and ethical treatment in research.     

How U.S. research institutions are responding to the single Institutional Review Board mandate

One of the most significant changes to the Common Rule is the requirement that institutions use a single Institutional Review Board (IRB) for cooperative research in the United States, unless more than one IRB is required by state, local, or tribal law, or a signatory federal agency decides an exception is warranted. We surveyed Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) officials at the top U.S. research institutions to understand their knowledge and opinion of the mandate, what steps their institutions are taking, and difficulties their institutions are facing. One-hundred seven institutions (56.9%) responded to the survey. While support for the single-IRB mandate was positive overall, most respondents acknowledged that their institution is likely to face some difficulties complying with it. Regulatory agencies can help institutions to comply with the mandate by providing guidance concerning such issues as exceptions to the mandate, local context review, oversight, and implementation of reliance agreements, and development of policies, procedures, and best practices.     

Too Many Rationales,Not Enough Reason: A Call to Examine the Goals of Including Lay Members on Institutional Review Boards

Every major U.S. commission appointed to review Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) as well as numerous reports and scholarly articles have recommended increasing the number of lay (nonscientist and unaffiliated) members on IRBs. Meanwhile, qualitative studies have shown that lay IRB members experience confusion about their roles, including ambiguity whether their roles are different from other members of the board. Without articulating the unique reasons why unaffiliated and nonscientist members are needed, IRBs have little guidance on how to recruit and train these members, and how many should be at the table. By looking back through the history of IRB regulations, policies, and commentaries we can articulate unique contributions these members can make. Only with these contributions in mind can we make arguments for how to best achieve them and make the case that increasing their numbers is necessary.