scholarly journals Characterizing Current Attitudes and Practices for Human Subject Safety in Studies Involving Pupil Dilation

2020 ◽  
pp. 155626462096898
Author(s):  
Jacob Szpernal ◽  
Joseph Carroll ◽  
Ryan Spellecy ◽  
Jane A. Bachman Groth
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Vision Research ◽  
Human Subject ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Pupil Dilation ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Attitudes And Practices ◽  
Institutional Review

Standards in pupil dilation practices regarding the safety of human subjects are not present in vision research despite the potential for significant adverse effects. We developed two surveys to examine current practices around pupil dilation among vision researchers and individuals associated with oversight of human subjects research. While both groups note an absence of adverse events associated with pupil dilation, vision researcher practices differed with informed consent use and measures taken to minimize complications. For Institutional Review Boards, general risk assumption associated with dilation was not unanimous and there was a lack of specific guidance available to researchers for minimizing risk. These results uncover the need for standardized practices regarding pupil dilation in human subjects research.

scholarly journals A call for structured ethics appendices in social science papers

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 (29) ◽  
pp. e2024570118
Author(s):  
Edward Asiedu ◽  
Dean Karlan ◽  
Monica Lambon-Quayefio ◽  
Christopher Udry
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Intellectual Freedom ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Institutional Review

Ethics in social science experimentation and data collection are often discussed but rarely articulated in writing as part of research outputs. Although papers typically reference human subjects research approvals from relevant institutional review boards, most recognize that such boards do not carry out comprehensive ethical assessments. We propose a structured ethics appendix to provide details on the following: policy equipoise, role of the researcher, potential harms to participants and nonparticipants, conflicts of interest, intellectual freedom, feedback to participants, and foreseeable misuse of research results. We discuss each of these and some of the norms and challenging situations of each. We believe that discussing such issues explicitly in appendices of papers, even if briefly, will serve two purposes: more complete communication of ethics can improve discussions of papers and can clarify and improve the norms themselves.

Informed Consent

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 371-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheldon Zink ◽  
Stacey Wertlieb ◽  
Laura Kimberly
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Ethical Research ◽  
Half Century ◽  
Exchange Of Information ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Central Tenet

In the last half century, informed consent has become a central tenet of all research involving human subjects. However, even after the worldwide adoption of regulations aimed at ensuring the protection of subjects, some abuses continue. The installation of oversight bodies, such as institutional review boards, has prevented the bulk of deliberate mistreatment; however, unintentional coercion is still a problem. Informed consent is not limited to obtaining a signature on a consent form, but a process of decision making designed to protect the rights of patients and subjects. It is a constant, ongoing exchange of information between researcher and subject. Although research is invaluable to the advancement of medicine and transplantation, researchers have the responsibility to protect their subjects' rights and autonomy. This paper provides an overview of informed consent, principles behind the process, and implications of current regulations to assist readers in their endeavor for sound and ethical research.

Symposium on Human Subjects Research: Redux

2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 358-360
Author(s):  
Jesse A. Goldner
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
New Directions ◽  
Short Run ◽  
Research Protections ◽  
Review Boards

Two years ago, the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics published volume 28, number 4, devoted to a symposium entitled Human Subjects Research and the Role of Institutional Review Boards - Conflicts and Challenges. I had the good fortune to be asked to serve as editor of that issue. In her introduction to the symposium, the then editor-in-chief of the journal, Ellen Wright Clayton, observed that the country is currently undergoing a major reexamination of how biomedical research is conducted. While that reexamination has continued in the interim, some very recent events raise questions about the extent to which this will continue, at least in the short run, with equal vigor. The intervening years have witnessed a variety of new directions and events. The federal Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP), directed by Dr. Greg Koski, who wrote a brief commentary for the last symposium,L has taken a new direction, strongly stressing the need for institutions and their institutional review boards ORBS) to engage in extensive educational and quality improvement efforts with both researchers and their own member.

What the ANPRM Missed: Additional Needs for IRB Reform

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 390-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Lidz ◽  
Suzanne Garverich
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Limited Time ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The World

The federal Common Rule, which governs the conduct of research with human subjects, specifies the criteria and procedures by which Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) should review such research. Although there is wide agreement that IRBs, or Research Ethics Committees as they are called in most of the world, are essential to assuring that human subjects research meets common standards of ethics, IRBs have always come under considerable criticism. Some have critiqued IRBs for using important resources inefficiently, including the large amount of time researchers put into submitting applications, modifications, and reports and delaying the start of data collection within the limited time that grants and contracts provide. Others have critiqued the inconsistency of review of multi-site projects.

scholarly journals How are US institutions implementing the new key information requirement?

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-369
Author(s):  
Jessica Mozersky ◽  
Matthew P. Wroblewski ◽  
Erin D. Solomon ◽  
James M. DuBois
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Federal Policy ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Information Requirement ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Medical Institutions ◽  
Review Boards

AbstractRecent revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protections of Human Subjects require that informed consent documents begin with a “concise and focused presentation” of the key information a participant requires. Key information “must be organized and presented in a way that facilitates comprehension.” The regulations do not specify what information be included, nor how it must be presented to facilitate comprehension. It is unknown how institutions and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are interpreting the current regulations. We conducted a review of randomly sampled available key information templates at 46 US medical institutions to determine how they are implementing the new regulations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document