The new research ethic: Will oversight requirements sink forensic research?

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 361-367

  Candilis, Philip J ^a   Arikan, Rasim ^b   Noone, Sheila B ^a   Holzer, Jacob C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b Worcester State Hospital   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; COST; EDUCATION; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FORENSIC MEDICINE; HEALTH INSURANCE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PSYCHIATRY; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; LEGAL APPROACH;

CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;

EID: 25444435997     PISSN: 10936793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. U.S. General Accounting Office: Scientific research: continued vigilance critical to protecting human subjects. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, March 1996
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Inspector General: Institutional review boards: a time for reform. Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, June 1998
3. Appelbaum PS: Rethinking the conduct of psychiatric research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 54:117-20, 1997
4. Moreno JD: IRBs under the microscope. Kennedy Instit Ethics J 8:329-37, 1998
5. Institute of Medicine: Responsible research: a systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002
6. Hilts PJ: New voluntary standards are proposed for experiments on people. New York Times. September 29, 2000, p A16
7. Kahn JP, Mastroianni AC: Moving from compliance to conscience. Arch Intern Med 161:925-8, 2001
8. Office for Protection from Research Risks: Evaluation of human subjects: protections in schizophrenia research conducted by the University of California Los Angeles. Washington, DC: Office for Protection from Research Risks, National Institutes of Health, May 1994
9. Office for Protection from Research Risks: University of Maryland determination letter. Washington, DC: Office for Protection from Research Risks, National Institutes of Health, April 1998
10. Susko MA: Researchers must ensure woman didn't die in vain. Baltimore Sun. July 25, 2001, p 13A
11. Steinbrook R: Protecting research subjects: the crisis at Johns Hopkins. N Engl J Med 346:716-20, 2002
12. Maryland House Bill 917: Human research subjects institutional review boards. Passed April 3, 2002
13. Stolberg SG: The biotech death of Jesse Gelsinger. New York Times. November 28, 1999, p 137
14. Pierce C: Kennedy unbound. Boston Globe. January 5, 2003, p 10
15. U.S. Senate: Human Research Subjects Protection Act, introduced as HR 4697, May 9, 2002
16. Koski G: An open letter to the human research community. http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/qip/oltr.pdf
17. National Committee on Quality Assurance: VA human research protection accreditation program, final standards. Washington, DC: NCQA, 2001
18. Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research: Draft standards for human research protection programs. Boston, MA: Public Responsibility In Medicine and Research, 2001
19. Institute of Medicine: Preserving public trust: accreditation and human research participant protection programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001
20. Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs: AAHRPP wins CDC grant to assess accreditation's role in public health research. Washington, DC: AAHRPP, September 30, 2003. Available at http://www.AAHRPP.org
21. Brown JH, Schoenfeld LS, Allan PW: The costs of an institutional review board. J Med Educ 54:294-99, 1979
22. Wagner TH, Bhandari A, Chadwick GL, Nelson DK: The cost of operating institutional review boards (IRBs). Acad Med 78:638-44, 2003
23. Sugarman J: The role of institutional support in protecting human research subjects. Acad Med 75:687-92, 2000
24. National Bioethics Advisory Commission: Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, August 2001
25. DeVries RG, Forsberg CP: What do IRBs look like? What kind of support do they receive? Account Res 9:199-216, 2002
26. Durham ML: How research will adapt to HIPAA: a view from within the healthcare delivery system. Am J Law Med 28:491-503, 2002
27. O'Herrin JK, Post N, Kudsk KA: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations: effect on medical record research. Ann Surg 239:772-6, 2004
28. Ross SE, Lin CT: The effects of promoting patient access to medical records: a review. J Am Med Informat Assoc 10:129-38, 2003
29. Appelbaum PS: Response to the presidential address: the systematic defunding of psychiatric care-a crisis at our doorstep. Am J Psychiatry 159:1638-40, 2002
30. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: Disintegrating systems: the state of the states' public mental health systems. Washington, DC: Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 2001
31. Mulligan K: District branches seek solution to state's shortage of psychiatry beds. Psychiatric News. September 20, 2002, p 1
32. Sugarman J, Getz K, Speckman JL, et al: The cost of Institutional Review Boards in academic medical centers (letter). N Engl J Med 352:1825-7, 2005