What IRBs could learn from corporate boards

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 1-6

  Saver, Richard S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27944487458     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3564528     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Protecting Human Subjects: Status of Recommendations. Washington, DC: DHHS, Office of Inspector General, 2000;
2. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Recruiting Human Subjects: Pressures in Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research. Washington, DC: DHHS, Office of Inspector General, 2000;
3. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Institutional Review Boards: A Time For Reform. Washington, DC: DHHS, Office of Inspector General, 1998;
4. Institute of Medicine. Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003;
5. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Subjects. Bethesda, MD, 2001.
6. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Subcommittee on Governmental Affairs, 107th Congress, The Role of the Board of Directors in Enron's Collapse, July 8, 2002.
7. Veasey EN. Corporate governance and ethics in the post-Enron WorldCom environment. Wake Forest Law Review 2003;38:839-53.
8. Forbes D, Milliken F. Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review 1999; 24:489-492;
9. Johnson J, Daily C, Ellstrand A. Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management 1996;22:409-416;
10. Symposium: Enron and the future of U.S. corporate law and policy. Cornell Law Review 2004;89:269-552.
11. Edgar H, Rothman DJ. The institutional review board and beyond: Future challenges to the ethics of human experimentation. Milbank Quarterly 1995;73:489-506;
12. Wolf S. Law & bioethics: From values to violence. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2004;32:293-306.
13. Eisenberg M. Corporations and Other Business Organizations: Cases and Materials. 8th ed. unabridged. New York: Foundation Press, 2000, p. 203-105.
14. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Institutional Review Boards: Their Role in Reviewing Approved Research. Washington, DC: DHHS, Office of Inspector General, 1998;
15. Burman W, Eves R, Cohn D, Schooley R. Breaking the camel's back: Multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;134:152-157.
16. Dallas L. The relational board: Three theories of corporate boards of directors. Journal of Corporate Law 1996;22:1-25.
17. Lin L. The effectiveness of outside directors as a corporate governance mechanism: Theories and evidence. Northwestern University Law Review 1996;90:898-976.
18. Food and Drug Administration. Institutional Review Boards: Requiring Sponsors and Investigators To Inform IRBs of Any Prior IRB Reviews. Federal Register. March 6, 2002. 67:10115.
19. See ref. 7, Burman et al. 2001.
20. Mello MM, Student D, Brennan T, The rise of litigation in human subjects research. Annals of Internal Medicine 2003;139:40-45;
21. See also ref. 1, Office of Inspector General, Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform 1998.
22. Langevoort D. The human nature of corporate boards: Laws, norms, and the unintended consequences of independence and accountability. Georgetown Law Journal 2001:89;797-832.
23. Williams P. Why IRBs falter in reviewing risks and benefits. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1984:6;1-4;
24. Lemmens T, Miller PB. The human subjects trade: Ethical and legal issues surrounding recruitment incentives. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2003;31:398-418.
25. See ref. 1, Office of Inspector General, Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform 1998.
26. Sengupta S, Lo B. The roles and experiences of nonaffiliated and non-scientist members of institutional review boards. Academic Medicine 2003;78:212-215.
27. See ref. 5, Edgar et al. 1995.
28. See ref. 4, Forbes et al. 1999.
29. See ref. 13, Langevoort 2001.
30. See ref. 8, Dallas 1996.
31. Silverman H, Jull SC, Sugarman J. Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Critical Care Medicine 2001;29:235-241.
32. Eisenberg M. Corporate law and social norms. Columbia Law Review 1999;99:1253-1292.
33. Smith v. Van Gorkum, 488 A. 2d 858 (Del. 1985).
34. Rock E. Saints and sinners: How does Delaware corporate law work? University of California Los Angeles Law Review 1997;44:1009-1107.
35. See ref. 12, Mello et al. 2003.
36. See ref. 1, Institute of Medicine 2003; National Bioethics Advisory Commission 2001.
37. Porter J. What are the ideal characteristics of unaffiliated/nonscientist IRB members? IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1986;8:1-6.
38. Gilson R, Kraakman R. Reinventing the outside director: An agenda for institutional investors. Stanford Law Review 1991;43:863-904.
39. In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litigation, 824 A.2d 917 (Del. Ch. 2003).
40. Bhagat S, Black B. The uncertain relationship between board composition and firm performance. Business Law 1999;54:921-953.
41. See ref. 9, Lin 1996.
42. See ref. 4, Forbes et al. 1999.
43. See ref. 4, Johnson et al. 1996.
44. Securities and Exchange Commission, Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and National Association of Securities Dealers; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes. Federal Register. November 12, 2003. 68:64154.
45. See ref. 27, Porter 1986.
46. See ref. 34, Securities and Exchange Commission 2003.
47. 15 USC Section 78j-l.
48. 21 CFR 54.2-54.4 (Food and Drug Administration); 42 CFR 50.602-50.604 (Public Health Service); National Science Foundation. Investigator Financial Disclosure Policy. Federal Register. July 11, 1995. 60:35820.
49. See ref. 1, National Bioethics Advisory Commission 2001.
50. Brody BA, Expanding disclosure of conflicts of interest: The views of stakeholders. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2003;25:1-6;
51. DeRenzo E. Coercion in the recruitment and retention of human research subjects, pharmaceutical industry payments to physician-investigators, and the moral courage of the IRB. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2000;22:1-3.
52. Financial Relationships and Interests in Research Involving Human Subjects: Guidance for Human Subject Protection. Federal Register. May 12, 2004. 69:26393.
53. See ref. 8, Dallas 1996.
54. See ref. 9, Lin 1996.
55. See ref. 2, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Subcommittee on Governmental Affairs 2002.
56. Campbell EG, Weissman JS. Characteristics of medical school faculty members serving on institutional review boards: Results of a national survey. Academic Medicine 2003;78:831-36.
57. Fisch J. Taking boards seriously. Cardozo Law Review 1997;19:265-290.
58. Saver R. Medical research oversight from the corporate governance perspective: Comparing institutional review boards and corporate boards. William and Mary Law Review 2004;46:619-730.