Faculty Opinions recommendation of Principles of human subjects protections applied in an opt-out, de-identified biobank.

Author(s):  
Russ Altman
2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Pulley ◽  
Ellen Clayton ◽  
Gordon R. Bernard ◽  
Dan M. Roden ◽  
Daniel R. Masys

2021 ◽  
pp. 009862832110159
Author(s):  
Maya C. Rose ◽  
Jessica E. Brodsky ◽  
Elizabeth S. Che ◽  
Patricia J. Brooks

Background: Introductory Psychology students rarely learn about unethical biomedical research outside the Tuskegee syphilis study, but these practices were widespread in U.S. public health research (e.g., at the Willowbrook State School researchers infected children with disabilities with hepatitis). Objectives: Replicate and extend Grose-Fifer’s research ethics activity by evaluating if an online homework and in-class role-play increased awareness of unethical research and abuses at Tuskegee (replication) and Willowbrook (extension) and subsequent changes in human subjects protections. Method: As homework, students read about the studies and wrote statements from perspectives of individuals involved. In class, students read their statements and discussed how outrage led to research conduct regulations. Online pre/posttests asked students why it was important to learn about both studies. Results: At posttest, students were more aware of unethical research at Willowbrook and that Tuskegee led to changes in human subjects protections. Students who completed the role-play activity were less likely to mention abuses for Tuskegee than students who did not participate. Conclusion: We were partially successful in replicating and extending Grose-Fifer. Teaching Implications: Research ethics instruction should draw attention to historical precedents and how public outrage and social activism led to increased protections for research participants.


2012 ◽  
Vol 177 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reg Arthur Williams ◽  
Gary Gatien ◽  
Bonnie M. Hagerty

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 823-830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy M. P. King

First-in-human (FIH) research has several characteristics that require special attention with respect to ethics and human subjects protections. At least some nanomedical technologies may also have characteristics that merit special attention in clinical research, as other papers in this symposium show. This paper considers how to address these characteristics in the consent form and process for FIH nanomedicine research, focusing principally on experimental nanotherapeutic interventions but also considering nanodiagnostic interventions.It is essential, as a starting point, to recognize that the consent form and process are by no means the primary protectors of human subjects (although they are sometimes so regarded). Instead, consideration of the form and content of informed consent becomes relevant only after a clinical trial has been reviewed and deemed scientifically and ethically acceptable.Two convergent types of challenges to informed consent are posed by nanomedicine FIH research. First, some issues appear generally applicable to FIH research, but have specific nanomedicine implications.


2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Carlisle ◽  
Jonathan Kimmelman ◽  
Tim Ramsay ◽  
Nathalie MacKinnon

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document