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.     

Protocol for student replication of published research

Subpart D of the Common Rule establishes 4 categories of research that may be conducted on children. One category, 45 CFR 46.406, permits research posing a minor increase over minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit but expected to yield vital knowledge about the subjects' disorder or condition. To include other children in research posing a minor increase over minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit requires federal review and approval of the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 45 CFR 46.407. It is widely held that children generally should not be exposed to more than minimal risk in research without the prospect of direct benefit. To justify deviating from this norm, as 406 allows, two claims must be true: (1) When there is vital knowledge to be gained from studying children, it is permissible to expose some children to a minor increase over minimal risk with no prospect of direct benefit; (2) It is permissible for locally reviewed and approved research to expose only children with the disorder or condition under investigation to greater risk with no prospect of direct benefit. The justification for (1) appears to be grounded in the magnitude of benefit to society combined with the need to study children. This article demonstrates that, even if the necessity and magnitude of benefit to society justify exposing children to increased risk, the decision to categorically restrict participation in such research to children with the disorder or condition under investigation (unless the study is federally reviewed and approved) is not justified. Subpart D should be revised.     

The protection of unrepresented patients in emergency care research

In emergency care research, it may be the case that neither informed consent nor surrogate consent is possible. In order to nonetheless allow for such research, codes and regulations of research ethics have increasingly incorporated provisions regarding this specific situation. The protection that those provisions offer need to be better understood. This article addresses in what ways they protect individuals, and especially the extent to which the suggested protection compensates for the loss of surrogate consent. The Declaration of Helsinki, the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and the EU Clinical Trials Regulation serve as the main illustrations.     

Pediatric research posing a minor increase over minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit: challenging 45 CFR 46.406

Subpart D of the Common Rule establishes 4 categories of research that may be conducted on children. One category, 45 CFR 46.406, permits research posing a minor increase over minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit but expected to yield vital knowledge about the subjects' disorder or condition. To include other children in research posing a minor increase over minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit requires federal review and approval of the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 45 CFR 46.407. It is widely held that children generally should not be exposed to more than minimal risk in research without the prospect of direct benefit. To justify deviating from this norm, as 406 allows, two claims must be true: (1) When there is vital knowledge to be gained from studying children, it is permissible to expose some children to a minor increase over minimal risk with no prospect of direct benefit; (2) It is permissible for locally reviewed and approved research to expose only children with the disorder or condition under investigation to greater risk with no prospect of direct benefit. The justification for (1) appears to be grounded in the magnitude of benefit to society combined with the need to study children. This article demonstrates that, even if the necessity and magnitude of benefit to society justify exposing children to increased risk, the decision to categorically restrict participation in such research to children with the disorder or condition under investigation (unless the study is federally reviewed and approved) is not justified. Subpart D should be revised.     

Informed consent for research on stored blood and tissue samples: a survey of institutional review board practices

Numerous position papers have outlined informed consent recommendations for the collection, storage, and future use of biological samples; however, there currently is no consensus regarding what kinds of information should be included in consent forms. This study aimed to determine whether institutional review boards (IRBs) vary in their informed consent requirements for research on stored biological samples, and whether any variation observed could be correlated to factors such as volume of work, IRB members' familiarity with ethical issues in genetic research, and IRBs' use of either of two policy guidelines as resources. A brief survey was mailed to all IRB chairpersons on a mailing list obtained from the Office for Human Research Protections. Survey questions included whether consent forms for the collection of biological samples for future use address each of six provisions recommended in current guidelines and position statements, and whether IRBs used the Office for Protection from Research Risks' 1993 Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook, chapter 5 (hereinafter IRB Guidebook) or the National Bioethics Advisory Commission's 1999 Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, Volume I (hereinafter Report) in their deliberations. Despite a low response rate (22%, 427 respondents), results indicate that IRB practices vary substantially. The degree to which the provisions were included in consent forms was found to correlate positively with IRBs that review a greater volume of protocols annually, those that use the National Bioethics Advisory Commission Report in their deliberations, and those that draw on both the Report and the IRB Guidebook.     

EXCLUDING PARTICULAR INFORMATION FROM CONSENT FORMS

Although the informed consent process is crucial to protecting human research subjects, there are cases when particular information within the consent form may present risks to those subjects. In this paper, we examine a case in which including the sponsor’s name on the consent form may allow the form to serve as a surrogate for subjects’ HIV status.

There is no literature addressing the ethical acceptability of excluding particular information from consent forms, and there exists little regulatory guidance on this issue. We argue that excluding information from the consent form is, in fact, obligatory when that information is disclosed orally during the consent process but its presence on the form poses risks to the subjects the consent process is designed to protect. Further, we argue that the regulations ought to be amended to reflect this obligation.     

Excluding particular information from consent forms

Although the informed consent process is crucial to protecting human research subjects, there are cases when particular information within the consent form may present risks to those subjects. In this paper, we examine a case in which including the sponsor's name on the consent form may allow the form to serve as a surrogate for subjects' HIV status. There is no literature addressing the ethical acceptability of excluding particular information from consent forms, and there exists little regulatory guidance on this issue. We argue that excluding information from the consent form is, in fact, obligatory when that information is disclosed orally during the consent process but its presence on the form poses risks to the subjects the consent process is designed to protect. Further, we argue that the regulations ought to be amended to reflect this obligation.     

Informed Consent and Investigational New Drug Abuses in the U.S. Military

Objective: The focal point of this investigation was to research the ethical issues surrounding the military's requests for informed consent waivers when using investigational drugs, and the recent debate surrounding the anthrax vaccine as an investigational new drug (IND). Design: The military's management of the informed consent process was examined using documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Institutional Review Board (IRB) minutes, consent forms, legal pleadings, and protocols for specific investigational drugs. Results: In December 1990, prior to Operation Desert Storm, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) granted the Department of Defense (DoD) an unprecedented waiver to the federally mandated informed-consent requirement for the use of investigational drugs. However, the waiver approval was conditional, and the FDA insisted on several safeguards. Partially in response to the subsequent Gulf War Syndrome debate, the FDA recently evaluated the military's use of investigational drugs during the Gulf War. The FDA cited the military for significant deviations from the originally approved protocols. Most notably, the military was found to be abusing the IRB process by convening a second IRB when the first IRB concluded that waiving informed consent was unethical. In addition, there was a gross lack of documentation and no monitoring of adverse reactions. The DoD's plan to use the current anthrax vaccine on all 2.4 million troops against inhalation anthrax has kindled an additional investigational drug controversy. The safety and efficacy of the use of the anthrax vaccine as a prophylactic against inhalation anthrax have been questioned by both military and medical organizations. There have never been any published studies of human efficacy or long-term effects for the anthrax vaccine. In addition, the military is not using the vaccine for its intended purpose, and it is also not adhering to prescribed dosing schedules. There is clear evidence to support the claim that, in fact, the military's use of the anthrax vaccine should be considered experimental. Conclusions: I argue that in medical situations, the military is obligated to treat its troops as autonomous persons entitled to basic rights and protections. The DoD is currently using an approved drug, the anthrax vaccine, for an unapproved purpose and in an unapproved manner. In doing so, the DoD is not only violating the FDA's regulations against such practices, it is also violating an executive order which only allows the president to authorize the use of INDs on service members without their consent.     

Who Cares about Consent Requirements for Sourcing Human Embryonic Stem Cells? Are Errors In the Past Really Errors Of the Past?

Through an Access to Information Act request, we have obtained the consent forms used by the providers of every human embryonic stem cell (hESC) line approved for use by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and examined them to verify whether or not they meet the consent requirements established by Canadian law and regulations. Our findings show that at least seven out of ten consent forms studied did not satisfy these minimum requirements. We then outline various options for responding to this situation in terms of: (i) remedial measures for dealing with executive problems with regulatory oversight procedures; and (ii) remedial measures for dealing with the impugned lines.     

Current issues in clinical research and the development of new pharmaceuticals

As a normal part of the drug development process, U.S. pharmaceutical companies conduct many thousands of clinical trials each year. Only after a reasonable assurance of safety is made can the drug be given to patients who have the underlying medical condition that the drug is designed to treat. Patient welfare is assured by adhering to the Food and Drug Administration's interpretation of the “common rule”; if the data will be used to support a licensing application. 21 CFR Part 50 sets forth the regulations along with the principles of informed consent and the use of institutional review boards (IRBs) that assure patients’ rights are protected. Any potential conflict of interest on the part of a clinical investigator must be reported to the FDA. Pharmaceutical companies extensively monitor ongoing clinical trials for compliance with appropriate regulations. The recent revision of the Declaration of Helsinki governing placebo‐controlled clinical trials may adversely impact drug development     

Who cares about consent requirements for sourcing human embryonic stem cells? Are errors in the past really errors of the past?

Through an Access to Information Act request, we have obtained the consent forms used by the providers of every human embryonic stem cell (hESC) line approved for use by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and examined them to verify whether or not they meet the consent requirements established by Canadian law and regulations. Our findings show that at least seven out of ten consent forms studied did not satisfy these minimum requirements. We then outline various options for responding to this situation in terms of: (i) remedial measures for dealing with executive problems with regulatory oversight procedures; and (ii) remedial measures for dealing with the impugned lines.     

Current issues in clinical research and the development of new pharmaceuticals

As a normal part of the drug development process, U.S. pharmaceutical companies conduct many thousands of clinical trials each year. Only after a reasonable assurance of safety is made can the drug be given to patients who have the underlying medical condition that the drug is designed to treat. Patient welfare is assured by adhering to the Food and Drug Administration's interpretation of the "common rule" if the data will be used to support a licensing application. 21 CFR Part 50 sets forth the regulations along with the principles of informed consent and the use of institutional review boards (IRBs) that assure patients' rights are protected. Any potential conflict of interest on the part of a clinical investigator must be reported to the FDA. Pharmaceutical companies extensively monitor ongoing clinical trials for compliance with appropriate regulations. The recent revision of the Declaration of Helsinki governing placebo-controlled clinical trials may adversely impact drug development.     

Disclosure Issues in Neuroscience Research

Issues of disclosure arise in neuroscientific research during the informed consent process, whenever incidental findings are identified, and when study results are generated. The possibility of disclosure of incidental findings and/or research results may raise informational expectations on the part of subjects and may alter a study's risk:benefit ratio. We recommend that the informed consent process address this potential consequence of research participation, and specify the conditions under which particular types of information will be offered, the conditions under which information may not be disclosed, and any provisions for helping subjects make sense of the information to be disclosed.     

Recent changes in FDA's good laboratory practice regulations

In the Federal Register of December 22, 1978, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published regulations which described Good Laboratory Practice for safety tests conducted on regulated products (Anonymous, 1978). The regulations, popularly known as GLPs, have become universally recognized as the basic criteria for the conduct of a valid safety test and for assuring the quality and integrity of the collected data. Along with the publication of the GLPs, FDA instituted a vigorous program of inspection of toxicology laboratories to determine the degree of adherence to the regulations. In 1984, based on inspectional findings which revealed that a large majority of toxicology laboratories were adhering to the GLPs, FDA published a proposal intended to reduce the burden of compliance with the regulations (Anonymous, 1984). The proposal outlined major changes in the provisions on quality assurance, protocol preparation, test and control article characterization, and retention of specimens and samples. The final order based on the proposal was published in the federal register of September 4, 1987 (Anonymous). The purpose of this communication is to describe the procedures used by FDA to develop the final order, to discuss certain major issues that arose during its development, and to answer several questions that have arisen subsequently.     

Disclosure issues in neuroscience research

Issues of disclosure arise in neuroscientific research during the informed consent process, whenever incidental findings are identified, and when study results are generated. The possibility of disclosure of incidental findings and/or research results may raise informational expectations on the part of subjects and may alter a study's risk:benefit ratio. We recommend that the informed consent process address this potential consequence of research participation, and specify the conditions under which particular types of information will be offered, the conditions under which information may not be disclosed, and any provisions for helping subjects make sense of the information to be disclosed.     

Success of University Student Volunteers in Obtaining Consent for Reviewing Private Health Information for Emergency Research

This study aimed to determine the success of university student volunteers in obtaining consent from parents to allow review of their child’s personal health information (PHI) for emergency research screening. This study also aimed to examine the variables associated with successful consent. This was a prospective cross-sectional study conducted at a pediatric emergency department (ED). University students, who functioned as delegates of the health information custodian, approached parents for consent. Of 2,506 parents, 1,852 (73.9%) provided consent to allow review of their child’s PHI for research screening. Variables associated with successful consent were high (≥12 months) versus low (<12 months) volunteer experience (OR = 2.0), research related (vs. unrelated) to the child’s chief complaint (OR = 2.0), child treated regularly by specialists at the study institution (OR = 1.7), and ED presentation mid-week vs. weekend (OR = 1.7) and morning vs. evening presentation (OR = 1.4). When approached by a university student volunteer, about 25% of parents declined to have their child’s PHI reviewed for research screening. This model of obtaining consent may put some emergency research at risk for selection bias. Variables that increase the odds of successful consent can be considered in program design to improve the effectiveness of this model.     

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.     

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.     

合同法定形式效力比较及我国立法的完善

《合同法》在合同形式方面做出了许多与市场经济相适应的新规定 ,但由于对法定形式的法律性质和效力缺乏明确规定 ,引起法学理论和审判实践上的诸多不同理解和做法。借鉴国外的有关规定 ,补充规定“缺少法定书面形式的合同无效” ,修改第三十六条的“合同成立”为“合同有效” ,删除第四十四条关于批准、登记生效的规定 ,使我国合同形式的法律趋于完善成为必要。