Advertisement

Regulatory Reform

  • David B. Resnik
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 74)

Abstract

In Chaps.  5,  6,  7,  8,  9, and  10 I examined various ethical and policy issues pertaining to research with human subjects through the lens of five principles—respect for autonomy and dignity, non-maleficence, beneficence, justice, and trust. Along the way, I also discussed how federal regulations, agency guidance, and professional codes apply to those issues and mentioned recent changes to the Common Rule. In this chapter I will turn my focus to critiques of the current oversight system and recent changes to the regulations. At the end of Chap.  2, I raised the issue protectionism and suggested the determining the right level of protection for human subjects requires one to balance conflicting values, i.e. protection of human welfare and rights vs. the advancement of scientific knowledge. In this chapter, I will consider how regulatory reform efforts achieve this balance.

References

  1. Abbott, L., and C. Grady. 2011. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 6 (1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. 1995. Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  3. American Lung Association. 2011. Comments on proposed human protection standards. Public Comments on the ANPRM for the Common Rule, October 26, 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=HHS-OPHS-2011-0005-0833&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017.
  4. Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs. 2012a. Considering accreditation. Available at: http://www.aahrpp.org/learn/considering-accreditation. Accessed 26 July 2017.
  5. ———. 2012b. The value of accreditation. Available: http://www.aahrpp.org/learn/considering-accreditation/value-of-accreditation. Accessed 26 July 2017.
  6. Cadigan, R.J., D.K. Nelson, G.E. Henderson, A.G. Nelson, and A.M. Davis. 2016. Public comments on proposed regulatory reforms that would impact biospecimen research: The good, the bad, and the puzzling. IRB 37 (5): 1–10.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Health and Human Services. 1998. Institutional review boards: A time for reform. Available at: http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-97-00193.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2017.
  8. Department of Health and Human Services, and Food and Drug Administration. 2011. Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Human subjects research protections: Enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Federal Register 76 (143): 44512–44531.Google Scholar
  9. Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Commerce, Social Security Administration, Agency for International Development, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, National Science Foundation, and Department of Transportation. 2015. Notice of proposed rulemaking. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Federal Register 80 (173): 53933–54061.Google Scholar
  10. Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Commerce; Social Security Administration, Agency for International Development; Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Labor, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, and National Science Foundation; and Department of Transportation. 2017. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Federal Register 82 (12): 7149–7274.Google Scholar
  11. Emanuel, E.J., and J. Menikoff. 2011. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. New England Journal of Medicine 365 (12): 1145–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emanuel, E.J., A. Wood, A. Fleischman, A. Bowen, K.A. Getz, C. Grady, C. Levine, D.E. Hammerschmidt, R. Faden, L. Eckenwiler, C.T. Muse, and J. Sugarman. 2004. Oversight of human participants research: Identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Annals of Internal Medicine 141 (4): 282–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ervin, A.M., H.A. Taylor, C.L. Meinert, and S. Ehrhardt. 2015. Research ethics. Evidence gaps and ethical review of multicenter studies. Science 350 (6261): 632–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flory, J., and E. Emanuel. 2004. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association 292 (13): 1593–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 2015. Institutional review boards: Purpose and challenges. Chest 148 (5): 1148–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gunsalus, C.K., E.M. Bruner, N.C. Burbules, L. Dash, M. Finkin, J.P. Goldberg, W.T. Greenough, G.A. Miller, and M.G. Pratt. 2006. Mission creep in the IRB world. Science 312 (5779): 1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, D.E., B.H. Hanusa, B.S. Ling, R.A. Stone, G.E. Switzer, M.J. Fine, and R.M. Arnold. 2015. Using the IRB researcher assessment tool to guide quality improvement. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 10 (5): 460–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hurley, E. 2015. Unpacking the NPRM: Biospecimen research and broad consent. Ampersand, the PRIM&R Blog, November 17, 2015. Available at: http://blog.primr.org/unpacking-the-nprm-biospecimens-research-and-broad-consent/. Accessed 18 Aug 2017.
  19. Institute of Medicine. 2001. Preserving public trust: accreditation and human research participant protection programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2016. Researchers decry consent proposal. Science 352 (6288): 878–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kass, N., R. Faden, S. Goodman, Tunis S. Pronovost, and T. Beauchamp. 2013. The research-treatment distinction: A problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. Hastings Center Report, Special Report 43 (1): S4–S15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klitzman, R.L. 2015. The ethics police? The struggle to make human research safe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Klitzman, R.L., E. Pivovarova, and C.W. Lidz. 2017. Single IRBs in multisite trials: Questions posed by the new NIH policy. Journal of the American Medical Association 317 (20): 2061–2062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McWilliams, R., J. Hoover-Fong, A. Hamosh, S. Beck, T. Beaty, and G. Cutting. 2003. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. Journal of the American Medical Association 290 (3): 360–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Menikoff, J. 2006. What the Doctor didn’t say: The hidden truth about medical research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Millum, J., and J. Menikoff. 2010. Streamlining ethical review. Annals of Internal Medicine 153 (10): 655–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. 1998. Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity. Washington, DC: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 1999. Research involving human biological materials: Ethical issues and policy guidance. Washington, DC: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2001a. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Washington, DC: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2001b. Ethical and policy issues in international research: Clinical trials in developing countries. Washington, DC: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2017. Best pharmaceuticals for children act. Available at: https://bpca.nichd.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 16 Aug 2017.
  32. Nicholls, S.G., T.P. Hayes, J.C. Brehaut, M. McDonald, C. Weijer, R. Saginur, and D. Fergusson. 2015. A scoping review of empirical research relating to quality and effectiveness of research ethics review. PLoS One 10 (7): e0133639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nicholls, L., L. Brako, S.M. Rivera, A. Tahmassian, M.F. Jones, H.H. Pierce, and B.E. Bierer. 2017. What do revised U.S. rules mean for human research? Science 357 (6352): 650–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Petersen, L.A., K. Simpson, R. Sorelle, T. Urech, and S.S. Chitwood. 2012. How variability in the institutional review board review process affects minimal-risk multisite health services research. Annals of Internal Medicine 156 (10): 728–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pike, E.R. 2012. Recovering from research: A no-fault proposal to compensate injured research participants. American Journal of Law and Medicine 38 (1): 7–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ———. 2014. In need of remedy: US policy for compensating injured research participants. Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (3): 182–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ———. 2008a. Fraud, fabrication, and falsification. In The Oxford handbook of clinical research ethics, ed. E.J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R.A. Crouch, R.K. Lie, F.G. Miller, and D. Wendler, 787–794. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2008b. Closing loopholes in the federal research regulations: Some practical problems. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (11): 6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ———. 2012e. Centralized institutional review boards: Assessing the arguments and evidence. Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices November 8 (11): 1–13. Available at: http://www.firstclinical.com/journal/2012/1211_Centralized.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2015c. Unequal treatment of human research subjects. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 18 (1): 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. ———. 2015d. Some reflections on evaluating institutional review board effectiveness. Controlled Clinical Trials 45(Pt B): 261–264.Google Scholar
  42. Resnik, D.B., E. Parasidis, K. Carroll, J.M. Evans, E.R. Pike, and G.E. Kissling. 2014. Research-related injury compensation policies of U.S. research institutions. IRB 36 (1): 12–19.Google Scholar
  43. Rhodes, R., J. Azzouni, S.B. Baumrin, K. Benkov, M.J. Blaser, B. Brenner, J.W. Dauben, W.J. Earle, L. Frank, N. Gligorov, J. Goldfarb, K. Hirschhorn, R. Hirschhorn, I. Holzman, D. Indyk, E.W. Jabs, D.P. Lackey, D.A. Moros, S. Philpott, M.E. Rhodes, L.D. Richardson, H.S. Sacks, A. Schwab, R. Sperling, B. Trusko, and A. Zweig. 2011. De minimis risk: A proposal for a new category of research risk. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (11): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schneider, C.E. 2015. The Censor’s hand: The misregulation of human-subject research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schrag, Z.M. 2010. Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Shamoo, A.E. 1999a. Institutional review boards (IRBs) and conflict of interest. Accountability in Research 7 (2–4): 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. ———. 1999b. Unregulated research with human subjects. Accountability in Research 6 (3): 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shamoo, A.E., and J. Schwartz. 2008. Universal and uniform protections of human subjects in research. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (11): 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Silberman, G., and K.L. Kahn. 2011. Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: The state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Quarterly 89 (4): 599–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith, L. 2008. Reaching beyond regulations: The pursuit of accreditation of human research protection programs. The Monitor, June 2008: 67–70. Available at: http://research.unc.edu/files/2012/11/reaching-beyond-regulations.pdf. Accessed 11 Aug 2017.
  51. Solomon, S. 2016. Too many rationales, not enough reason: A call to examine the goals of including community members on institutional review boards. Accountability in Research 23 (1): 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sugarman, J., K. Getz, J.L. Speckman, M.M. Byrne, J. Gerson, E.J. Emanuel, and Consortium to Evaluate Clinical Research Ethics. 2005. The cost of institutional review boards in academic medical centers. New England Journal of Medicine 352 (17): 1825–1827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wisconsin IRB Consortium. 2011. Comments and recommendations from members of the Wisconsin IRB Consortium (WIC) regarding the multisite section of the ANPRM. Public Comment on the ANPRM for the Common Rule, October 11, 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=HHS-OPHS-2011-0005-0497&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Resnik
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations