Noninstitutional commercial review boards in North America: A critical appraisal and comparison with IRBs

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 1-12

  Lemmens, Trudo ^a   Thompson, Alison ^a  

^a at the University of Toronto Wagner is also a faculty member of the Canadian Medical Associations' Physician Management Institute   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ECONOMICS; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; INFORMATION PROCESSING; NATIONAL COUNCIL ON ETHICS IN HUMAN RESEARCH (CANADA); NORTH AMERICA; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; STANDARD; STATISTICS; TIME;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; NATIONAL COUNCIL ON ETHICS IN HUMAN RESEARCH (CANADA);

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DATA COLLECTION; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; NORTH AMERICA; PRIVATE SECTOR; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0002458479     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3563780     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Institutional Review Boards: The Emergence of Independent Boards. Washington, D.C. DHHS, 1998: i.
2. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: Recommendations Guiding Medical Doctors in Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Adopted by the 18th World Medical Assembly, Helsinki, 1964. Revised 7 October 2000 as Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.
3. Common Rule, 45 CFR 46; Food and Drug Administration rules, 11 CFR 56.
4. Medical Research Council, Natural Sciences and Engineering Council, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa: Ministry of Public Works, 1998.
5. Hirtle M, Lemmens T, Sprumont D. A comparative analysis of research ethics review mechanisms and GCP guidelines. European Journal of Health Law 2000; 7: 265-91.
6. Brody BA. The Ethics of Biomedical Research: An International Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998: 315-85.
7. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use-Good Clinical Practice. Consolidated Guideline, 1996. Available at: http://www.ifpmer.org/ich.html; last accessed 19 February 2001.
8. Sprumont D. Legal protection of human research subjects in Europe. European Journal of Health Law 1999; 6: 25-43.
9. Since the submission of this paper, the Office of Human Research Protection has changed its assurance program. The revised procedure now includes registration of IRBs. However, this assurance program only binds IRBs that review research sponsored or regulated by a federal agency that follows the Common Rule.
10. See ref. 1, Office of Inspector General 1998: 4.
11. Available at http://www.himanet.com/irb.htm; last accessed 25 May 2000.
12. See ref. 1, Office of Inspector General 1998.
13. Medical Research Council of Canada. Guidelines on Research Involving Human Subjects, Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 1987.
14. National Council on Bioethics in Human Research. Protecting and promoting the human research subject: A review of the function of research ethics boards in Canadian facultires of medicine. NCBHR Communiqué 1995; 6(1): 3-30.
15. Levine RJ. Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research, 2d ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986.
16. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Protection from Research Risks. Protection of Human Subjects: Code of Federal Regulations. Effective 19 August 1991, p. 7.
17. McNeil P. International trends in research regulation: Science as negotiation. In: Weintraub DN, ed. Research on Human Subjects: Ethics, Law and Social Policy. Kiddlington: Pergamon, 1998: 234-63.
18. James Bell Associates. Final Report: Evaluation of NIH Implementation of Section 491 of the Public Health Service Act, Mandating a Program of Protection for Research Subjects. Prepared for the Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health, 15 June 1998: 70.
19. See ref. 4, Tri-Council Policy Statement 1998: Art. 1.3(d).
20. See ref. 18, James Bell Associates 1998: 38.
21. Hayes GJ, Hayes SC, Dykstra T. A survey of university institutional review boards: Characteristics, policies and procedures. IRB 1995; 17(3): 2.
22. Heath E. The noninstitutional review board: What distinguishes us from them? IRB 1998; 20(5): 9.
23. Glass K, Lemmens T. Conflict of interest and commercialisation of biomedical research: What is the role of research ethics review? In: Caulfield T, Williams-Jones B, eds. The Commercialisation of Genetic Research: Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing, 1999: 79-99.
24. See ref. 14, National Council on Bioethics 1995: 11.
25. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, 1998.
26. See ref. 1, Office of Inspector General 1998: ii.
27. See ref. 1, Office of Inspector General 1998: 4.
28. See ref. 21, Hayes et al. 1995: 1.
29. See ref. 18, James Bell Associates 1998: 81.
30. See ref. 14, National Council on Bioethics 1995: 10.
31. See ref. 21, Hayes et al. 1995: 2.
32. See ref. 14, National Council on Bioethics 1995: 11.
33. See ref. 1, Office of Inspector General 1998: ii.
34. See ref. 14, National Council on Bioethics 1995: 10.
35. E.g., French Code of Public Health (Code de la Santé Publique), An. L.209-12.
36. E.g., Regulation of Medication in Clinical Trials of the Legislative Assembly of the Swiss Canton of Bern (Office Intercantonale de contrôle des médicaments, Règlement sur les médicaments au stade d'essai clinique), Doc. 230.1, 18 November 1993, Art. 8.3.
37. E.g., European Union Directive on Clinical Trials: European Commission Proposal for a Directive on the Implementation of Good Clinical Practice in the Conduct of Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use. DG III, 24 February 1997. OJ. 97/C 306/10.
38. See ref 5, Hirtle et al. 2000.
39. See ref. 21, Hayes et al. 1995: 3.
40. See ref. 14, National Council on Bioethics 1995: 10.
41. See ref. 15, Levine 1986: 20-7.
42. See ref. 15, Levine 1986: 21.
43. Freedman B. Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research: A proposed explication. IRB 1987; 9(6): 7-10.
44. 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. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.
45. President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Final Report. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 450.
46. See ref. 14, National Council on Bioethics 1995: 10.
47. See ref. 13, Medical Research Council 1987.
48. Office of Protection from Research Risks. Institutional Review Board Guidebook, 1993. Available at http://www.ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/irb/ irb_guidebook.htm; last accessed 11 February 2001.
49. World Health Organization. Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) for Trials on Pharmaceutical Products. Geneva: WHO, 1995.
50. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: CIOMS, 1993.
51. See ref. 21, Hayes et al. 1995: 2.
52. See ref. 15, Levine 1986: 341-57.
53. See ref. 1, Office of Inspector General 1998: ii, 5.
54. See ref. 1, Office of Inspector General 1998: 6-7.
55. Lemmens T, Freedman B. Ethics review for sale? Conflict of interest in commercial research review boards. Milbank Quarterly 2000; 78: 547-84.
56. See ref. 23, Glass et al. 1999.
57. See ref. 1, Office of Inspector General 1998: 7.
58. Levine RJ. Statement on institutional review boards presented to Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, United States House of Representatives, 11 June 1998.
59. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Protection from Research Risks. Protection of Human Subjects: Code of Federal Regulations. Effective 19 August 1991: 4.
60. Health EJ. The IRB's monitoring function: Four concepts of monitoring. IRB 1979; 1(5): 1-12.
61. Weijer C, Shapiro S, Fuks A, Glass KC, Skrutkowska M. Monitoring clinical research: An obligation unfulfilled. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1995; 152: 1973-80.
62. Gordon B, Prentice E. Continuing review of research involving human subjects: Approach to the problem and remaining areas of concern. IRB 1997: 19(2): 8-11.
63. See ref. 25, Office of Inspector General 1998: 6-7.
64. Skrutkowski M, Weijer C, Shapiro S, Fuks A, Langleben A, Freedman B. Monitoring informed consent in an oncology study posing serious risks to subjects. IRB 1998: 20(6): 1-6.
65. See ref. 18, James Bell Associates 1998: 33.
66. http://cme.nci.nih.gov/. Accessed 16 February 2001.
67. http://www.primr.org/aahrpp.html. Accessed 16 February 2001.
68. http://www.primr.org/ certification.html. Accessed 19 February 2001.
69. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants, Draft Report, Chapter 4, 2000:9, recommendation 4.3 and 4.4. Available at: http://bioethics.gov/human/human_comment.h tml; last accessed12 February 2001.
70. Food and Drug Regulations - Amendment. Canada Gazette Part I, Schedule 1024, January 22, 2000.
71. See ref. 70, Food and Drug Regulations, 2000.
72. Therapeutics Product Programme, Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, accompanying Schedule 1024 amendment on Clinical Trials, 14 January 2000: 11.
73. See ref. 72, Therapeutic Products Programme, 2000:16.
74. See ref. 72, Therapeutic Products Programme 2000:15.
75. Edgar H, Rothman DJ. The institutional review board and beyond: Future challenges to the ethics of human experimentation. Milbank Quarterly 1995: 73: 489-506.