Consensus and controversy in clinical research ethics

JAMA

Volumn 294, Issue 11, 2005, Pages 1411-1414

  Brody, Baruch A ^a   McCullough, Laurence B ^a   Sharp, Richard R ^a  

^a BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

RECOMBINANT DNA;

CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNITY; CONSENSUS; EDUCATION; GENE TRANSFER; GENETICS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LITERATURE; MEDICAL ETHICS; NOTE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CONSENSUS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; INFORMED CONSENT;

EID: 25144514619     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.294.11.1411     Document Type: Note

References (29)

1. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Available at: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm. Accessed July 21, 2005.
2. Brody BA. The Ethics of Biomedical Research: An International Perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998.
3. Emanuel EJ, Crouch RA, Arras JD, Moreno JD, Grady C, eds. Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research: Readings and Commentary. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2003.
4. US Department of Health and Human Services. Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR §46.102(d). Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/ guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.204. Accessed July 21, 2005.
5. Frader JE. Research and innovation in surgery. In: McCullough LB, Jones JW, Brody BA, eds. Surgical Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998:216-241.
6. Casarett D, Karlawish JH, Sugarman J. Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: proposed criteria and potential implications. JAMA. 2000;283:2275-2280.
7. Levine RJ. Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research. 2nd ed. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1986.
8. Office of Inspector General, US Department of Health and Human Services. Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1998. No. OEI-01-97-00193.
9. National Institutes of Health. Guidelines for research involving recombinant DNA molecules. Available at: http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba. Accessed July 21, 2005.
10. Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, et al. A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1405-1408.
11. Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Grisso T, Renaud M. Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risk in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:1689-1697.
12. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004;292:1593-1601.
13. Sugarman J, Mastroianni AC, Kahn JP. Ethics of Research With Human Subjects: Selected Policies and Resources. Frederick, Md: University Publishing Group; 1998:209-215.
14. Weijer C. Protecting communities in research: philosophical and pragmatic challenges. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 1999;8:501-513.
15. Foster MW, Sharp RR. Genetic research and culturally specific risks: one size does not fit all. Trends Genet. 2000;16:93-95.
16. Juengst ET. Groups as gatekeepers to genomic research: conceptually confusing, morally hazardous, and practically useless. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1998;8:183-200.
17. Macklin R. Double Standards in Medical Research in Developing Countries. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
18. American Academy of Pediatrics. Guidelines for the ethical conduct of studies to evaluate drugs in pediatric populations. Pediatrics. 1995;95:286-294.
19. American College of Physicians. Cognitively impaired subjects. Ann Intern Med. 1989;111:843-848.
20. Dresser R. Mentally disabled research subjects: the enduring policy issues. JAMA. 1996;276:67-72.
21. Dickert N, Grady C. What's the price of a research subject? approaches to payment for research participation. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:198-203.
22. Freedman LS, Simon R, Foulkes MA, et al. Inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993: the perspective of NIH clinical trialists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:277-285.
23. Women's Health Initiative Participant Web site. Available at: http://www.whi.org. Accessed July 21, 2005.
24. Miller FG, Brody H. A critique of clinical equipoise: therapeutic misconception in the ethics of clinical trials. Hastings Cent Rep. 2003;33:19-28.
25. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 2004;292:1363-1364.
26. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered? a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 2005;293:2927-2929.
27. McCrary SV, Anderson CB, Jakovljevic J, et al. A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1621-1626.
28. Emanuel EJ, Miller FG. The ethics of placebo-controlled trials: a middle ground. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:915-919.
29. Weir RF, Olick RS. The Stored Tissue Issue: Biomedical Research, Ethics, and Law in the Era of Genomic Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2004.