The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (and other Federal Agencies) plans to implement the revised version of the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, or “Common Rule,” on January 19, 2019. I arrived in sunny San Diego early morning Wednesday, November 14, for the 2018 Advancing Ethical Research Conference (AER18) on a mission to learn everything I could about these federal policy changes. Read more
Three researchers at the Texas A&M University School of Public Health—Hye-Chung Kum, PhD; Alva O. Ferdinand, DrPH, JD; and Cason Schmit, JD—invite ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) experts to participate in a three-round Delphi study. The purpose of the study is to design an IRB application template for patient-centered comparative effectiveness research that requires record linkage. The researchers are currently seeking feedback on their prototype software, called Minimum Necessary Disclosure for Interactive Record Linkage (MINDFIRL), which is designed to mimimize identity disclosure via controlled information disclosure. Read more
As research activities go, the use of archival tissue has ranked pretty low on my list of ethical concerns. After all, the tissue has been or will be collected during a clinical procedure that patients would undergo regardless of their participation in research; there is no additional physical risk to subjects, and the primary ethical dilemma (or so the thinking goes) is the potential for a breach of confidentiality.
By the end of the full-day preconference program Biobanking in an Era of Precision Medicine Research: Approaches to the Ethical, Regulatory, and Practical Challenges, the presenters had changed my thinking on this topic. I now have a much better appreciation of the complex relationship between researchers, patient-participants, pathologists, and IRBs, particularly when specimens will be used to investigate precision medicine applications. Read more
The question of whether and how to return individual research results to subjects has been an ongoing area of uncertainty for investigators and research institutions. The recent report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), Return of Individual-Specific Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm, offered recommendations for “a process-oriented approach to returning individual research results that considers the value to the research subject, the risks and feasibility of return, and the quality of the research laboratory.” On October 3, 2018, PRIM&R hosted a webinar to summarize the recommendations of the report, and provide guidance specifically on its potential implications for IRBs. Read more
PRIM&R’s 2018 IRB Administrator Boot Camp presented a good opportunity to be immersed in learning at a face-to-face event that was well-attended, but small enough to make personal connections. Read more
PRIM&R recently hosted a full-day preconference session at the 2018 Advancing Ethical Research Conference (AER18) discussing the challenges and strategies for successfully implementing single IRB review. Conferences like PRIM&R’s are an important venue for institutions to get together to discuss these challenges and find solutions. Read more