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.     

The therapeutic misconception: a threat to valid parental consent for pediatric neuroimaging research

Neuroimaging research has brought major advances to child health and wellbeing. However, because of the vulnerabilities associated with neurological and developmental conditions, the parental need for hope, and the expectation of parents that new medical advances can benefit their child, pediatric neuroimaging research presents significant challenges to the general problem of consent in the context of research involving children. A particular challenge in this domain is created by the presence of therapeutic misconception on the part of parents and other key research stakeholders. This article revierws the concept of therapeutic misconception and its role in pediatric neuroimaging research. It argues that this misconception can compromise consent given by parents for the involvement of their children in research as healthy controls or as persons with neurological and developmental conditions. The article further contends that therapeutic misconception can undermine the research ethics review process for proposed and ongoing neuroimaging studies. Against this backdrop, the article concludes with recommendations for mitigating the effects of therapeutic misconception in pediatric neuroimaging research.     

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.     

The Therapeutic Misconception: A Threat to Valid Parental Consent for Pediatric Neuroimaging Research

Neuroimaging research has brought major advances to child health and well-being. However, because of the vulnerabilities associated with neurological and developmental conditions, the parental need for hope, and the expectation of parents that new medical advances can benefit their child, pediatric neuroimaging research presents significant challenges to the general problem of consent in the context of research involving children. A particular challenge in this domain is created by the presence of therapeutic misconception on the part of parents and other key research stakeholders. This article reviews the concept of therapeutic misconception and its role in pediatric neuroimaging research. It argues that this misconception can compromise consent given by parents for the involvement of their children in research as healthy controls or as persons with neurological and developmental conditions. The article further contends that therapeutic misconception can undermine the research ethics review process for proposed and ongoing neuroimaging studies. Against this backdrop, the article concludes with recommendations for mitigating the effects of therapeutic misconception in pediatric neuroimaging research.     

What's an Oscar worth?

This article examines the impact of an Academy Award nomination and award for best picture, best actor/actress, and best supporting actor/actress on a film's (i) market share of theaters, (ii) average revenue per screen, and (iii) its probability of survival. The model is estimated using weekly box-office data for a matched sample of nominated and non-nominated films. The results indicate substantial financial benefits for a nomination and award for best picture and best actor/actress. The structure of rewards is consistent with that found in two-stage, single-elimination tournaments.     

Is bounded-vision an adequate explanation of strategic decision-making failures

One important area in which Management Science should be involved must surely be in the prevention of corporate failure. In this paper we therefore use a scientific methodology to try to identify the major causes of such failure. Two widely differing systems are examined and a large number of hypotheses considered as explanations of failure. In each case the only hypothesis which we are unable to reject, is that prior to the failure the dominant decision-makers in the system were not prepared to accept facts which were plainly available and which, if acted upon, could have prevented disaster. This allows us to suggest some ways of helping to prevent failure. Nevertheless, we feel that research into the mechanisms generating this phenomenon, which we have called bounded-vision, is required before adequate technologies can be designed.