It Takes Two to Tango: Ethical Issues Raised by the Study of Topical Microbicides with Adolescent Dyads

Journal of Adolescent Health

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 541-542

  Ott, Mary A ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MICROBICIDE;

ADOLESCENCE; EDITORIAL; ETHICS; HEALTH SURVEY; JUSTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUALITY;

ADMINISTRATION, TOPICAL; ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; ANTI-INFECTIVE AGENTS; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES;

EID: 43449086685     PISSN: 1054139X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.03.009     Document Type: Editorial

References (16)

1. Auslander B.A., Rupp R.E., Short M.B., et al. Male partners of young women: assessing their attitudes towards topical microbicides. J Adolesc Health (2008)
2. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 45 CFR 46, Subpart A: protection of human subjects. Code of Federal Regulations Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 289(a) (2005)
3. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Fed Reg 44 76 (1979) 23191-23197
4. Wadman M. Johns Hopkins researchers fume over government crackdown. Nature 412 6845 (2001) 363
5. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 45 CFR 46, subpart D. Protection of human subjects, additional protections for children involved as subjects in research. Code of Federal Regulations Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 289(a) (2005)
6. Veatch R.M. Ranking, balancing, or simultaneity: resolving conflicts among the Belmont principles. In: Childress J.F., Meslin E.M., and Shapiro H.T. (Eds). Belmont Revisited: Ethical Principles for Research with Human Subjects (2005), Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC 184-204
7. Shah S., Whittle A., Wilfond B., et al. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?. JAMA 291 4 (2004) 476-482
8. Halpern C.T., Udry J.R., and Suchindran C. Effects of repeated questionnaire administration in longitudinal studies of adolescent males' sexual behavior. Arch Sex Behav 23 1 (1994) 41-57
9. Ross L.F. Do healthy children deserve greater protection in medical research?. J Pediatr 142 2 (2003) 108-112
10. Wendler D., and Jenkins T. Children's and their parents' views on facing research risks for the benefit of others. Pediatrics 162 1 (2008) 9-14
11. Brody J.L., Annett R.D., Scherer D.G., et al. Comparisons of adolescent and parent willingness to participate in minimal and above-minimal risk pediatric asthma research protocols. J Adolesc Health 37 3 (2005) 229-235
12. Annett R.D., Brody J.L., Scherer D.G., et al. Perception of risk associated with asthma research procedures among adolescents, parents, and pediatricians. J Allergy Clin Immunol 114 5 (2004) 1138-1145
13. Dziak K., Anderson R., Sevick M.A., et al. Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study. Health Serv Res 40 1 (2005) 279-290
14. Mansbach J., Acholonu U., Clark S., et al. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard, observational, pediatric research protocol. Acad Emerg Med 14 4 (2007) 377-380
15. Wendler D., Belsky L., Thompson K.M., et al. Quantifying the federal minimal risk standard: implications for pediatric research without a prospect of direct benefit. JAMA 294 7 (2005) 826-832
16. Singer E., and Levine F.J. Protection of human subjects of research: recent developments and future prospects for the social sciences. Public Opin Q 67 1 (2003) 148-164