Advertisement

The Ethical Approval Process

  • Karren Takamura
  • Frank PetriglianoEmail author
Chapter

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.

References

  1. 1.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Corbie-Smith G. The continuing legacy of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: considerations for clinical investigation. Am J Med Sci. 1999;317:5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Department of Health and Human Services NIoH, Office for Protection for Research Risks Code of Federal Regulations - Title 45 Public Welfare CFR 46.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Institute of Medicine BoHSP, Committee on Clinical Research Involving Children. Ethical conduct of clinical research involving children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kent G. Responses by four Local Research Ethics Committees to submitted proposals. J Med Ethics. 1999;25:274–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ndebele P. The Declaration of Helsinki, 50 years later. JAMA. 2013;310:2145–6.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reverby SM. Examining Tuskegee: the infamous syphilis study and its legacy. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations