Abstract
In response to prior violations of ethical treatment of human subjects in research, institutions and regulations have been established in order to protect the rights of human subjects who participate in biomedical research.
This chapter briefly describes the history of human research and violations of ethical conduct and how those violations led to the establishment of ethical codes and federal regulations for biomedical research. In the United States, the National Research Act of 1974 outlined a set of guidelines for research involving human subjects, introducing the concept of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). In 1991, the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects or “Common Rule” was established, which sets forth the rules that must be followed in order to properly carry out human research in the United States.
Informed consent is an important component of ethical human research and often requires the most modifications during the IRB approval process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barrett R. Quality of informed consent: measuring understanding among participants in oncology clinical trials. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2005;32:751–5. https://doi.org/10.1188/05.ONF.751-755.
Corbie-Smith G. The continuing legacy of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: considerations for clinical investigation. Am J Med Sci. 1999;317:5–8.
Department of Health and Human Services NIoH, Office for Protection for Research Risks Code of Federal Regulations - Title 45 Public Welfare CFR 46.
Dyrbye LN, et al. Medical education research and IRB review: an analysis and comparison of the IRB review process at six institutions. Acad Med. 2007;82:654–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318065be1e.
Fischer BA IV. A summary of important documents in the field of research ethics. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32:69–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbj005.
Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004;292:1593–601. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.13.1593.
Hirshon JM, Krugman SD, Witting MD, Furuno JP, Limcangco MR, Perisse AR, Rasch EK. Variability in institutional review board assessment of minimal-risk research. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9:1417–20.
Institute of Medicine BoHSP, Committee on Clinical Research Involving Children. Ethical conduct of clinical research involving children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.
Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2001;358:1772–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06805-2.
Jones JS, White LJ, Pool LC, Dougherty JM. Structure and practice of institutional review boards in the United States. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3:804–9.
Kent G. Responses by four Local Research Ethics Committees to submitted proposals. J Med Ethics. 1999;25:274–7.
Ndebele P. The Declaration of Helsinki, 50 years later. JAMA. 2013;310:2145–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281316.
Parvizi J, Tarity TD, Conner K, Smith JB. Institutional review board approval: why it matters. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:418–26. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00362.
Project MK Ultra, the Central Intelligence Agency’s’ Program of Research into Behavioral Modification (1977), First Session ed. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office (copy hosted at the New York Times website); 1977.
Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1949. p. 181–2.
Reverby SM. Examining Tuskegee: the infamous syphilis study and its legacy. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press; 2009.
United States. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. DHEW Publication no (OS) 78-0012. The Commission; for sale by the Supt. of Docs. Bethesda: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1978.
United States. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research., United States. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Appendix, the Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. DHEW publication no (OS) 78-0013. The commission; for sale by the Supt. of Docs. Bethesda: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1978.
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310:2191–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
Zimbardo PG. On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: with special reference to the Stanford prison experiment. In: Pimple KD, editor. Research ethics. New York: Routledge; 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 ISAKOS
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Takamura, K., Petrigliano, F. (2019). The Ethical Approval Process. In: Musahl, V., et al. Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58253-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58254-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)