The market for (Ir)reproducible econometrics

Context: As the volume and complexity of research have increased, the amount of time spent on Institutional Review Board (IRB) review has decreased. The complexity of research has expanded, requiring increasingly specialized knowledge to review it. Dilemma: Under the current system, increasing numbers of research studies requiring expertise in ethics, new technologies or diverse study designs place a substantial burden upon local IRBs and often result in substantial variability among their reviews. This lack of uniformity in the review process creates uneven human subjects’ protection thus undermining the intent of the Common Rule. Objectives: To outline a scenario for expert centralized IRB review via implementation of a national virtual IRB review system overseen by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). Conclusions: The complicated ethical issues and science involved in much of current research warrant an expert review panel. Centralized review would enable expert review specific to the research at hand, ensure consistency in human subjects protection, reduce the burden on local IRBs, and may reduce time spent obtaining approval. A centralized virtual system would allow IRB members to remain at their institutions while providing unprecedented expert review through currently available technology, and make information regarding monitoring and adverse event reporting available online in real-time.     

A Qualitative Study of Non-Affiliated,Non-Scientist Institutional Review Board Members

In addition to outlining criteria for the approval of human subjects research, federal regulations provide guidance regarding local institutional review board (IRB) membership. IRBs are mandated to include “at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas” and “at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution.” Often a single individual serves both of these roles simultaneously. Although there have been calls for increased representation of lay community members on IRBs, little is known regarding their experiences or their perceptions of human subject protections and the IRB process. Using an ethnographic interview approach, this study seeks to gain a perspective from non-affiliated, non-scientist (NA/NS) IRB members about the process in which they participate. Findings suggest a need for clarification regarding whom NA/NS IRB members represent. They also suggest that NA/NS IRB members’ experiences could be improved by an increased show of respect from the IRB chair, other members, and staff; efforts to make participation more convenient for these volunteer members; and training tailored specifically to NA/NS members. Further research on this important and understudied topic is needed to determine best practice and policy recommendations.     

A qualitative study of non-affiliated, non-scientist institutional review board members

In addition to outlining criteria for the approval of human subjects research, federal regulations provide guidance regarding local institutional review boards (IRB) membership. IRBs are mandated to include "at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas" and "at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution." Often a single individual serves both of these roles simultaneously. Although there have been calls for increased representation of lay community members in IRBs, little is known regarding their experiences or their perceptions of human subject protections and the IRB process. Using an ethnographic interview approach, this study seeks to gain a perspective from non-affiliated, non-scientist (NA/NS) IRB members about the process in which they participated. Findings suggest a need for clarification regarding whom NA/NS IRB members represent. They also suggest that NA/NS IRB members' experiences could be improved by an increased show of respect from the IRB chair, other members, and staff; efforts to make participation more convenient for these volunteer members; and training tailored specifically to NA/NS members. Further research on this important and understudied topic is needed to determine best practice and policy recommendations.     

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.     

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Argument for National Research Review

The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently published voluntary guidelines for human embryonic stem (hES) cell research. The NAS guidelines propose two levels of oversight. At the local level, research institutions are to create Embryonic Stem Cell Research Oversight (ESCRO) committees with a mandate to assess the scientific merit and ethical acceptability of hES cell research. At the national level, a new committee is to be created, not to review specific research proposals, but rather to periodically assess, and as needed revise, the NAS guidelines. In this article, we critically assess this proposal. In particular, we review the benefits and limitations of local research review. On this basis, we argue that local review is insufficient for hES cell research and that while there are obvious pragmatic and political reasons for the NAS to favor local research review, there are more compelling reasons for the NAS to have recommended national review of hES cell research proposals.     

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.     

Human embryonic stem cell research: an argument for national research review

The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently published voluntary guidelines for human embryonic stem (hES) cell research. The NAS guidelines propose two levels of oversight. AT the local level, research institutions are to create Embryonic Stem Cell Research Oversight (ESCRO) committees with a mandate to assess the scientific merit and ethical acceptability of hES cell research. At the national level, a new committee is to be created, not to review specific research proposals, but rather to periodically assess, and as needed revise, the NAS guidelines. In this article, we critically assess this proposal. In particular, we review the benefits and limitations of local research review. On this basis, we argue that local review is insufficient for hES cell research and that while there are obvious pragmatic and political reasons for the NAS to favor local research review, there are more compelling reasons for the NAS to have recommended national review of hES cell research proposals.     

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.     

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.     

Testing drugs in pediatric populations: The FDA mandate

On November 27, 1998 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a new rule requiring that drugs and biological products be tested in pediatric populations. Since voluntary testing in pediatric populations had not resulted in a significant increase in pediatric labeling of drugs, stronger measures were needed to ensure that infants and children would receive the benefits of properly tested drugs and biologies. The mandate for pediatric testing raises a core ethical question: How should the need for validated treatments that benefit children as a group be weighed against the obligation to protect individual child subjects of research? The preamble to the new rule claims that adherence to Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines will provide adequate protection to individual subjects. Yet the special protections provided to children in these guidelines are not required by the new FDA rule, and have never been obligatory for research that is regulated by the FDA. While the new rule does not necessitate or encourage violation of these standards, the rule does not pay adequate attention to them nor clarify what role they should play in IRB review of protocols under FDA regulation.     

The Expanding Purview: Institutional Review Boards and the Review of Human Subjects Research

The implications of the institutional review board (IRB) system's growing purview are examined. Among the issues discussed are whether IRBs are censoring research and whether the IRB review process fundamentally alters the research that is being conducted. The intersection between IRB review and free speech is also explored. In general, it is argued that the review system for human subjects research (HSR) should be modified in order to limit the scope of IRB review.     

The expanding purview: institutional review boards and the review of human subjects research

The implications of the institutional review board (IRB) system's growing purview are examined. Among the issues discussed are whether IRBs are censoring research and whether the IRB review process fundamentally alters the research that is being conducted. The intersection between IRB review and free speech is also explored. In general, it is argued that the review system for human subjects research (HSR) should be modified in order to limit the scope of IRB review.     

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.     

The Role of Intuition in Risk/Benefit Decision-Making in Human Subjects Research

One of the key principles of ethical research involving human subjects is that the risks of research to should be acceptable in relation to expected benefits. Institutional review board (IRB) members often rely on intuition to make risk/benefit decisions concerning proposed human studies. Some have objected to using intuition to make these decisions because intuition is unreliable and biased and lacks transparency. In this article, I examine the role of intuition in IRB risk/benefit decision-making and argue that there are practical and philosophical limits to our ability to reduce our reliance on intuition in this process. The fact that IRB risk/benefit decision-making involves intuition need not imply that it is hopelessly subjective or biased, however, since there are strategies that IRBs can employ to improve their decisions, such as using empirical data to estimate the probability of potential harms and benefits, developing classification systems to guide the evaluation of harms and benefits, and engaging in moral reasoning concerning the acceptability of risks.     

Rhetoric and Reality in European Co-operation with Third Countries: A Case Study

This case study illustrates the reality of trying to achieve the European Commission objective of fruitful international research co-operation with Third Countries. The process of responding to an EC research call, preparing a proposal and negotiating a contract are explored with areas of general applicability being highlighted. The case study is drawn from the Avicenne Initiative in the area of health systems research. The difficulties and inequality of access to information, administrative research support and resourcing are explored as both issues for individuals and institutions and also as part of the difficulties of developing south-north or east-west research partnerships. The backstage of research is explored in order to highlight issues of discourse, practice and procedure which, if tackled, could provide a more level playing field for researchers from a wide range of institutions and countries.     

Research Misconduct Definitions Adopted by U.S. Research Institutions

In 2000, the U.S. federal government adopted a uniform definition of research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP), which became effective in 2001. Institutions must apply this definition of misconduct to federally-funded research to receive funding. While institutions are free to adopt definitions of misconduct that go beyond the federal standard, it is not known how many do. We analyzed misconduct policies from 183 U.S. research institutions and coded them according to thirteen different types of behavior mentioned in the misconduct definition. We also obtained data on the institution’s total research funding and public vs. private status, and the year it adopted the definition. We found that more than half (59%) of the institutions in our sample had misconduct policies that went beyond the federal standard. Other than FFP, the most common behaviors included in definitions were “other serious deviations” (45.4%), “significant or material violations of regulations” (23.0%), “misuse of confidential information” (15.8%), “misconduct related to misconduct” (14.8%), “unethical authorship other than plagiarism” (14.2%), “other deception involving data manipulation” (13.1%), and “misappropriation of property/theft” (10.4%). Significantly more definitions adopted in 2001 or later went beyond the federal standard than those adopted before 2001 (73.2% vs. 26.8%), and significantly more definitions adopted by institutions in the lower quartile of total research funding went beyond the federal standard than those adopted by institutions in the upper quartiles. Public vs. private status was not significantly associated with going beyond the federal standard.     

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.     

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.     

COI Policies: Tax Dollars Should Not Be Used to Fund U.S. Institutions Not Making the Grade

Over two billion dollars was awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in research funding from 2010 to March 2012 to institutions receiving a grade of “C,” “D,” or “F” on their conflict of interest policies, as determined by the American Medical Student Association's scorecard on conflict of interest policies. More institutional oversight is needed with regard to assuring conflict of interest policies at U.S. research institutions are adequate. As stewards of public funds, HHS should require a minimum standard which institutional conflict of interest policies should meet, beyond current regulatory requirements, before granting funding.