Research Ethics as Social Policy. Some Lessons from Experiences in Canada and in the United States

2003 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-85
Author(s):  
Michael McDonald ◽  
Eric Meslin

For more than tlrree decades, Canada and the United States have used similar mechanisms for ensuring the protection of human subjects involved in biomedical and behavioural research: written guidelines that specify the substantive and procedural requirements of investigators and institutions; individual informed consent, and prior review and approval by interdisciplinary committees. Given the proximity of the countries to one another and the massive amount of trade and commerce that transpires between them, it is not surprising that these countries share a number of values in research. During the past fifteen years, however, both countries have experienced new challenges to their systems. Sorne of the challenges relate to new trends in research, such as genetics studies and massively increased private sector funding for pharmacological research. Other challenges relate to emerging trends in oversight policies and procedures, such as accreditation of ethics committees. Research reflects a country's particular social policies. The responses to emerging trends illustrate how such policies are evolving in sometimes quite different ways in both countries. This reflects the related but distinct political cultures and structures in the two countries. This paper will explore these trends and emerging responses, drawing lessons from each.

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 488-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana S. Iltis

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.


2004 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederic Jacobs ◽  
Arina Zonnenberg

This article (1) examines the overall structure of regulatory research oversight in the United States; (2) details the origins and evolution of federal legislation pertaining to the protection of human subjects in biomedical and behavioral treatment and research; and (3) describes the expansion of oversight regulation from biomedical and behavioral treatment areas to the social sciences. In addition, the paper describes three areas identified by compliance administrators as susceptible to abuse: (1) informed consent, (2) assessment of risks and benefits, and (3) equitable selection of human subjects. There is a discussion of existing tensions in the implementation of oversight policies and procedures. Finally, the paper identifies four issues for future consideration: (1) scope of the mandate regarding protection of human subjects, (2) impact on the nature of research being undertaken, (3) financial burden of compliance and oversight activities, and (4) ethical standards, constraints, and potential.


2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 922-929 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Joffe

Over the past 40 years, a complex review and oversight system has grown within the United States and internationally to regulate the conduct of human subjects research. This system developed in response to revelations of abuses of human subjects in experiments such as those conducted in the Nazi concentration camps, the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, the Willowbrook Hepatitis Studies, and the studies described by Beecher in his 1966 article in the New England Journal of Medicine. The oversight system is based on a foundation, first implemented by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) in 1966 and by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1971, of prior review and approval of a written experimental protocol by an independent committee. The World Medical Association articulated the ethical centrality of independent review in its 1975 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, and the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research endorsed the requirement in its flagship Belmont Report.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 597-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen E. Johnson ◽  
Christopher P. Salas-Wright ◽  
David Córdova ◽  
Jenny Ugalde ◽  
Jelena Todic ◽  
...  

In this study, we explored Latinx adolescents’ knowledge and perceptions of biobehavioral research and their willingness to participate in such studies. We conducted four focus groups in the summer of 2014 with Latinx adolescents in Texas between the ages of 12 and 17 years ( n = 17; 53% male; M age = 14.6 years [ SD = 1.66]) who were recruited from a community-based clinic. Five themes emerged from our content analysis: (a) protection of human subjects is important to participants, (b) comfort with providing different types of biological data varies depending on different factors, (c) engagement in biobehavioral research should be grounded in a cultural lens, (d) providing bilingual research staff is essential, and (e) adolescents have various motivations for participating. Findings highlighted how various factors could serve as both barriers and facilitators to participation. Our study provides insight into strategies for conducting biobehavioral research with Latinxs, who are the fastest growing group of adolescents in the United States and experience disparities in health-risk behaviors that can be better understood through research approaches that integrate biological and psychological measures. Without considering the perspectives of historically marginalized or understudied populations, we jeopardize the quality and validity of research findings, and risk harming participants.


2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Kue ◽  
Laura A. Szalacha ◽  
Mary Beth Happ ◽  
Abigail L. Crisp ◽  
Usha Menon

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document