The Invisible Vulnerable: The Economically and Educationally Disadvantaged Subjects of Clinical Research

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Howard Stone
Keyword(s):  
Human Subjects ◽  
Disabled Persons ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Educationally Disadvantaged ◽  
Mentally Disabled ◽  
The Common ◽  
Protection Of Human Subjects

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) federal regulations pertaining to the protection of human subjects at Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46, Subpart A (“the Common Rule”), refer to the need for special precautions when persons characterized as vulnerable are used as human research subjects. Under the Common Rule, persons considered “vulnerablae” are those who are likely to be susceptible to coercive or undue influence; the term “vulnerable” includes “children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons,” or those who are “economically or educationally disadvantaged.” The need for special precautions with some of these vulnerable persons in the context of research has long been addressed by both mandatory additional protections found in Subparts B through D of 45 C.F.R. pt. 46 (that are not, coincidentally, part of the Common Rule) and additional detailed guidance documents provided by HHS or its components to investigators and their respective institutions.

Currents in Contemporary Ethics

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 154-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
Privacy Protection ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Privacy Rule ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The Common ◽  
Protection Of Human Subjects ◽  
Privacy Issues

For nearly twenty-five years, federal regulation of privacy issues in research involving human subjects was the primary province of the federal rule for Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule). As of April 14, 2003, the compliance date for the Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), however, the Common Rule and the Privacy Rule jointly regulate research privacy. Although, in theory, the Privacy Rule is intended to complement the Common Rule, there are several areas in which the rules diverge. In some instances the inconsistencies result in gaps in privacy protection; in other instances the inconsistencies result in added burdens on researchers without additional privacy protections. In all instances, the lack of harmonization of these rules has created confusion, frustration, and misunderstanding by researchers, research subjects, and institutional review boards (IRBs). In this article, I review the major provisions of the Privacy Rule for research, explain the areas in which the Privacy Rule and Common Rule differ, and conclude that the two rules should be revised to promote consistency and maximize privacy protections while minimizing the burdens on research.

Vexed Again: Social Scientists and the Revision of the Common Rule, 2011-2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 254-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary M. Schrag
Keyword(s):  
Human Subjects ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Final Rule ◽  
Advance Notice ◽  
The Common ◽  
Protection Of Human Subjects

In revising the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule) between 2009 and 2018, regulators devoted the vast bulk of their attention to debates over biomedical research. They lacked both expertise in and concern about the social sciences and humanities, yet they imposed their will on experts in those fields. The revision process was secretive, spasmodic, and unrepresentative, especially compared to rulemaking in Canada, where social scientists participate in the process, and revisions take place every few years. The result was a final rule that offers some wins for social science and the humanities, but that fails to solve the problems identified by Ezekiel Emanuel and in the 2011 advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

Justice, Fairness, and Membership in a Class: Conceptual Confusions and Moral Puzzles in the Regulation of Human Subjects Research

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 488-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana S. Iltis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Commission ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
The Common ◽  
Protection Of Human Subjects

Much of the human research conducted in the United States or by U.S. researchers is regulated by the Common Rule. The Common Rule reflects the decision of 17 federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services (whose regulations appear at 45CFR46), to require that investigators follow the same rules for conducting human research. (The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] has its own rules (at 21CFR50 and 21CFR56), though there is significant overlap with the Common Rule.) Many of the obligations delineated in the Common Rule can be traced back to the work of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (hereafter the National Commission). The National Commission was appointed in 1974 as part of the National Research Act (P.L. 93-348) in response to revelations about serious abuses involving human subjects, most notably the Tuskegee/United States Public Health Service Syphilis Study.

scholarly journals Biobanking, Consent, and Certificates of Confidentiality: Does the ANPRM Muddy the Water?

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 440-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett A. Williams ◽  
Leslie E. Wolf
Keyword(s):  
Human Services ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Initial Interaction ◽  
Research Protections ◽  
The Common

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed substantial changes to the current regulatory system governing human subjects research in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), entitled “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators.” Some of the most significant proposed changes concern the use of biospecimens in research. Because research involving biological materials begins with an initial interaction with an individual, such research falls squarely within the human subjects research regulatory framework known as the “Common Rule,” which applies to research conducted or funded by the HHS and the other signatory agencies and departments. However, as described in detail below, much biospecimen research may fall within exemptions and exceptions under the Common Rule and, thus, may be conducted without consent. The ANPRM proposes requiring written consent for research use of biospecimens, even if the biospecimens were initially collected for a purpose other than research or have been stripped of identifiers.

A Living Wage for Research Subjects

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trisha B. Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Human Subjects ◽  
Crowding Out ◽  
Living Wage ◽  
Research Subject ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Wage Payment ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Undue Inducement ◽  
Protection Of Human Subjects

Offering cash payments to research subjects is a common recruiting method, but this practice continues to be controversial because of its potential to compromise the protection of human subjects. Some critics question whether researchers should be allowed to offer money at all, citing concerns about commodification of the research subject, invalidation of study results, and increased risks to subjects. Other critics are comfortable with the idea of monetary payments but question how much researchers can pay their subjects, citing concerns about undue inducement, crowding out, and monetary exploitation. Focusing only on the amount researchers can pay their subjects, this paper argues that the federal regulations and guidelines should implement a standard payment formula. It argues for a wage payment model, and critically examines three candidates for a base wage: the nonfarm production wage, the FLSA minimum wage, and a living wage.

The Role of State Law in Protecting Human Subjects of Public Health Research and Practice

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 654-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Burris ◽  
Lance Gable ◽  
Lesley Stone ◽  
Zita Lazzarini
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Health Practice ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Public Health Agencies ◽  
Specimen Collection ◽  
The Common

“Public health practice” consists of activities and Programs managed by public health agencies to promote health and prevent disease, injury, and disability. Some of these activities might be deemed to fit within the broad definition of “research” under federal regulations, known as the Common Rule, designed to protect human research subjects. The Common Rule defines research as “a systeniatic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” Public health activities that might under some circumstances be considered research include disease reporting, review of medical records, surveys, interviews, focus groups, specimen collection (blood, urine, etc.), and laboratory testing (both identifiable and anonymous).There are questions about the extent to which the Common Rule applies or was intended to apply to public health practice: and it has been suggested in any case that Common Rule regulation of public health practice may not be socially optimal for both practical and principled reasons.

Implications of the Revised Common Rule for Qualitative Health Research: Opportunities, Concerns, and Recommendations

2021 ◽  
pp. 104973232110611
Author(s):  
Jill Owczarzak ◽  
Katherine C. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Behavioral Interventions ◽  
Behavioral Science ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Important Change ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Ethical Oversight

In January 2019, revisions to federal regulations that outline requirements for ethical oversight of human subjects research (The Revised Common Rule) went into effect. These revisions reflect major changes in thinking about risk and protection of research subjects. The Revised Common Rule (RCR) considerably curtails federal oversight of social and behavioral science, with most non-interventional research and “benign” behavioral interventions becoming exempt from mandated Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, although determination of exemption remains with IRBs. As two qualitative health researchers serving on IRBs, we consider how this contraction of federal oversight dovetails with longstanding criticisms of IRB oversight of qualitative research. We explore the passage of the RCR as a point of potentially important change in procedure and principle in relation to ethical oversight of qualitative health research. We identify challenges and opportunities with these changes at the institutional, professional, and individual levels for ethical and impactful qualitative research.

IRB Creep: Federal Regulations Protecting Human Research Subjects and Increasing Instructors' Responsibilities

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane A. Riordan ◽  
Michael P. Riordan
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
Federally Funded ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Accounting Faculty ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Human Research Subjects ◽  
Review Boards

ABSTRACT: Federal regulations require oversight of federally sponsored research involving human subjects. Universities have responded by forming Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Although these regulations only apply to federally funded projects, universities have extended the oversight to include all projects involving human subjects. From our own experience, we observe that not all accounting faculty are aware of their responsibilities to their local boards. The sanctions for failing to follow required procedures depend on the infraction, and range from an order to cease work on the project to termination of university service for the faculty member and expulsion for the student. This report helps accounting faculty understand how the review process may affect their role as instructors and serves as encouragement to them to become familiar with the requirements of local review boards.

Biobanking Research and Privacy Laws in the United States

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather L. Harrell ◽  
Mark A. Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
Human Subjects ◽  
The United States ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Privacy Rule ◽  
Biobank Research ◽  
Privacy Laws ◽  
The Us ◽  
Protection Of Human Subjects ◽  
Hipaa Privacy Rule

Privacy is protected in biobank-based research in the US primarily by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule and the Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule). Neither rule, however, was created to function in the unique context of biobank research, and therefore neither applies to all biobank-based research. Not only is it challenging to determine when the HIPAA Privacy Rule or the Common Rule apply, but these laws apply different standards to protect privacy. In addition, many other federal and state laws may be applicable to a particular biobank, researcher, or project. US law also does not directly address international sharing of data or specimens outside of the EU–US Safe Harbor Agreement, which only applies to receipt of data by certain US entities from EU countries, and is in the process of revision. Although new rules would help clarify privacy protections in biobanking, any implemented changes should be studied to determine the sufficiency of the protections as well as its ability to facilitate or hinder international collaborations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document