This blog summarizes the major provisions of the second NPRM, which is focused primarily on harmonizing language, definitions, and informed consent requirements in 21 CFR 50—Protection of Human Subjects, and on harmonizing provisions around continuing review, IRB review generally, and IRB membership, in 21 CFR 56—Institutional Review Boards. Read more
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
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
In July of this year, the National Academies of Science, Medicine, and Engineering (NASEM) released a report titled, “Returning Individual Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm.” It’s a comprehensive report that raises many important considerations and proposes a number of thoughtful recommendations on this very timely topic. I won’t be able to do justice to all of its details and nuance here. Instead, I’ll share what I take to be some key themes and takeaways, including for IRBs. Read more
