Defanging IRBs: replacing coercion with information

Northwestern University Law Review

Volumn 101, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 735-747

  Epstein, Richard A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547953703     PISSN: 00293571     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. See Dale Carpenter, IRBs, Regulatory Incentives, and Some Modest Proposals for Reform, 101 NW. U. L. REV. 687 (2007);
2. Robert Charrow, Protection of Human Subjects-Is Expansive Regulation Counterproductive?, 101 NW. U. L. REV. 707 (2007).
3. See, e.g., Carpenter, supra note 1, at 691-94. For a number of sensible, if modest, proposals for reform
4. see id. at 699-704.
5. Id. at 691.
6. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
7. See Renée Lettow Lerner, Unconstitutional Conditions, Germaneness, and Institutional Review Boards, 101 NW. U. L. REV. 775 (2007);
8. James Weinstein, Institutional Review Boards and the Constitution, 101 NW. U. L. REV. 493 (2007).
9. See Philip Hamburger, Getting Permission, 101 NW. U. L. REV. 405 (2007) [hereinafter Hamburger, Getting Permission];
10. see also Philip Hamburger, The New Censorship: Institutional Review Boards, 2004 SUP. CT. REV. 271 [hereinafter Hamburger, lhe New Censorship].
11. For an exhaustive defense of the constitutionality of these boards, see Weinstein, supra note 5. For his rejoinder
12. see Hamburger, Getting Permission, supra note 6.
13. See Weinstein, supra note 5, at 552-57. For my general views,
14. See RICHARD A. EPSTEIN, BARGAINING WITH THE STATE (1993);
15. Richard A. Epstein, Unconstitutional Conditions, State Power, and the Limits of Consent, 102 HARV. L. REV. 4 (1988).
16. See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1297, 1306-07 (2006).
17. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS: LIABILITY FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION § 525 (1977).
18. For one powerful statement of the position, see Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 780-83 (D.C Cir. 1972). It is worth noting that the plaintiff lost at trial, and got no relief on appeal.
19. See Canterbury v. Spence, 509 F.2d 537 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (unpublished table decision).
20. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., HipReplacement.com: Restoring the Joy of Motion, http:// www.hipreplacement.com/hip-home.html (last visited Nov. 12, 2006).
21. Henry K. Beecher, Ethics and Clinical Research, 21A NEW ENG. J. MED. 1354 (1966).
22. NAT'L COMM'N FOR THE PROT, OF HUMAN SUBJECTS OF BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIOR RESEARCH, THE BELMONT REPORT: ETHICAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS OF RESEARCH (1978), available at http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html [hereinafter BELMONT REPORT]. The title comes from the name of the conference center at which the relevant deliberations were held.
23. National Research Act, Pub. L. No. 93-348, 88 Stat. 1974.
24. For one recent discussion, see Richard S. Saver, Medical Research and Intangible Harm, 74 U. CLN. L. REV. 941, 951-52 (2006).
25. See Charrow, supra note 1, at 710.
26. BELMONT REPORT, supra note 14, at 3.
27. See JERRY MENIKOFF, WHAT THE DOCTOR DIDN'T SAY: THE HIDDEN TRUTH ABOUT MEDICAL RESEARCH 4-6 (2006).
28. BELMONT REPORT, supra note 14, at 6 (emphasis added).
29. Id. at 6.
30. Id. at 7.
31. Id. at 14-18.
32. Id. at 8-10.
33. Id. at 15-16.
34. Id. at 17.
35. See, e.g., Carpenter, supra note 1, at 701.