Conflicts of interest in research: How IRBs address their own conflicts

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 6-12

  Wolf, Leslie E ^a   Zandecki, Jolanta ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; REVIEW; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DISCLOSURE; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS;

EID: 33846810082     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Weiss R, Nelson, D. Victim's dad faults gene therapy team. Washington Post, February 3, 2000;A02;
2. Steinbrook R. Financial conflicts of interest and the NIH. NEJM 2004;350(4):317-330.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General. Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform. Washington, DC: 1998;
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Protecting Human Research Subjects: Status of Recommendations. Washington, DC: 2000.
5. See ref. 2, Office of Inspector General 1998; Heath D, Wilson D. System's serious flaws have led many to call for regulatory reform. Seattle Times, March 15, 2001;A11:
6. Lemonick MD, Goldstein A. At your own risk.Time April 22, 2002;46-56;
7. Levinsky NG, Nonfinancial conflicts of interest in research. NEJM 2002;347(10)1759-761;
8. Long KR, Danger: Clinical trial deaths rock medical community. Cleveland Plain Dealer. May 11, 2002;E 1;
9. Campbell KG, Weissman JS, Clarridge B, Characteristics of medical school faculty members serving on institutional review hoards: Results of a national survey Academic Medicine 2003;78(8):831-836;
10. Kmanuel F. J, Wood A, Fleisuhman A, et al. Oversight of human participants research: Identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Annals of Internal Medicine 2004;141(4):282-91.
11. See ref. 2, Office of Inspector General 1998;
12. See ref. 3, Heath and Wilson 2001;
13. Sec ref. 3, I.evinsky 2002;
14. Sec ref. 3, Long 2002;
15. See ref. 3, Campbell et al. 2003.
16. Stolberg SG. Institute restricted after gene therapy death. New York Times, May 25, 2000;A20;
17. Stolberg SG. Teenager's death is shaking up field of gene-therapy experiments. New York Times, January 17, 2000;A20.
18. Manier J, Berens M. UIC tolerated research ethics lapses, critics say. Chicago Tribune, September 3, 1999, 1.
19. See ref. 3, Heath and Wilson 2001;
20. See ref. 3, Lemonick and Goldstein 2002.;
21. See ref. 3, Long 2002;
22. See ref. 3, Campbell et al. 2003.
23. 45 CFR 46.107(c) (2005).
24. Office for Protection from Research Risks. Institutional Review Board Guidebook.Chapter I, Institutional Administration. http://222.hhs.gov/ohrp/ irb/irb_chapter1.htm
25. National Institutes of Health. NIH Extramural Awards Rankings Medical Schools, 1003. http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/awards/trends/medsch.htm.
26. Census Regions and Divisions of the United States. http://www.census.gov/ geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf.
27. See ref. 3, Campbell et al. 2003.
28. Chambliss E, Wilkins DB. What needs fixing? Promoting effective ethical infrastructure in large law firms: A call for research and reporting. Hofstra Law Review 1002:30: 691-716;
29. Edelman LB. Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology 1992;97:1531-1576;
30. Zucker I.G. The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. In: Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ. The Neto Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991, p. 83-107;
31. Myers JJ, Steward WT, Charlebois E, et al. Written clinic procedures enhance delivery of HIV "prevention with positives" counseling in primary health care settings. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 2004;37:Suppl 2:S95-S100.
32. The experts' verdict on painkillers, New York Times, February 25, 2005;A14;
33. Harris G, Berenson A. 10 voters on panel backing pain pills had industry ties. New York; Times, February 25, 2005;A1.
34. Flamm RE, Judicial Disqualification; Recusal and Disqualification of Judges, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1996.
35. Center for Scientific Review and National Institutes of Health. Review procedures for scientific group meetings, 2004. http://www.csr.nih.gov/ guidelines/proc.htm.
36. California Code of Civil Procedure. Section 170.1 (2005); See ref. 15, Flamm 1996.