How should a “reasonable” HRPP approach key information?

Tags:

25 Mar

Comments: 1

“One person’s flexibility is another person’s ambiguity.”

I kept going back to this comment, articulated by Carrie Wolinetz (NIH), as I helped my HRPP prepare for the revised Common Rule implementation in January. Although Dr. Wolinetz was referring to the NIH’s Genomic Data Sharing Policy, the phrase is a perfect expression of my thoughts on the “concise and focused presentation of the key information” that now must appear at the beginning of consent forms.

This topic was addressed at the AER18 plenary session “To Participate or Not to Participate, that Is the Question.” Moderated by Ivor Pritchard (OHRP), panelists Celia Fisher (Fordham University), Jonathan [...] Read more

14
Feb2019

Minding the (db)GaP: Age of Majority and the NIH’s GDS Policy

Tags:

14 Feb

No comments

The 2018 Advancing Ethical Research Conference (AER18) was my second PRIM&R conference, and this year I came armed with questions for specific organizations and agencies. At the top of my list was a question regarding the 2015 NIH Genomic Data Sharing (GDS) Policy: When children’s data is submitted to a national genomic data sharing repository, such as the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), what are the consent expectations when those subjects reach the age of majority? Read more

9
Nov2018

Recommendations for Oversight of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

Tags:

9 Nov

No comments

In 2010, a little-known research institute, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), began funding hundreds of clinical studies with the aim of increasing the value of medical innovation. These studies included patients and family members in every step of the research process. This approach, called patient-centered outcomes research, has become a novel tool for conducting health care investigations; but, it raises ethical issues, which have largely been pushed to the background. Read more

You are the chief human research protections officer at a prestigious academic medical center (AMC). You have just discovered that two doctors on your staff have been secretly conducting a clinical study on their patients. The doctors have broken every rule in the human subjects protection book. They did not even tell their patients they were in a clinical study, and some of them died. The president of the AMC has called a meeting this afternoon where you will have to explain the situation and make your recommendations. What a nightmare! To complicate things, it turns out that the study treatment is an astonishing medical breakthrough that can save thousands of lives. The doctors want to submit a paper to a major medical journal by the end of the week. A Nobel Prize could be in order. Read more