Trust in early phase research: Therapeutic optimism and protective pessimism

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 393-401

  Kim, Scott Y H ^a   Holloway, Robert G ^b   Frank, Samuel ^c   Wilson, Renee ^b   Kieburtz, Karl ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Early phase research; Gene transfer; IRBs; Research ethics; Survey of IRBs; Therapeutic misconception; Trust in research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ETHICS; FEMALE; GENE TRANSFER; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PARKINSON DISEASE; PERCEPTION; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RESEARCH SUBJECT; TRUST; UNITED STATES;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; CONSENT FORMS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; FEMALE; GENE TRANSFER TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PARKINSON DISEASE; PERCEPTION; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; TRUST; UNITED STATES;

EID: 57949090775     PISSN: 13867423     EISSN: 15728633     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11019-008-9153-z     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Agrawal, M., and E.J. Emanuel. 2003. Ethics of phase 1 oncology studies: Reexamining the arguments and data. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 290: 1075-1082.
2. Cheng, J., J. Hitt, B. Koczwara, K.A. Schulman, C.B. Burnett, D.J. Gaskin, J.H. Rowland, and N.J. Meropol. 2000. Impact of quality of life on patient expectations regarding Phase I clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 18: 421-428.
3. Churchill, L.R., D.K. Nelson, G.E. Henderson, N.M. King, A.M. Davis, E. Leahey, and B.S. Wilfond. 2003. Assessing benefits in clinical research: Why diversity in benefit assessment can be risky. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 25: 1-8.
4. De Vries, R.G., and C.P. Forsberg. 2002. What do IRBs look like? What kind of support do they receive? Accountability in Research 9: 199-216.
5. Henderson, G.E., A.M. Davis, N.M.P. King, M.M. Easter, C.R. Zimmer, B.B. Rothschild, B.S. Wilfond, D.K. Nelson, and L.R. Churchill. 2004. Uncertain benefit: Investigators' views and communications in early phase gene transfer trials. Molecular Therapy 10: 225-231.
6. Henderson, G.E., M.M. Easter, C. Zimmer, N.M.P. King, A.M. Davis, B.B. Rothschild, L.R. Churchill, B.S. Wilfond, and D.K. Nelson. 2006. Therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer trials. Social Science & Medicine 62: 239-253.
7. Horng, S., E.J. Emanuel, B. Wilfond, J. Rackoff, K. Martz, and C. Grady. 2002. Descriptions of benefits and risks in consent forms for phase I oncology trials. New England Journal of Medicine 347: 2134-2140.
8. Joffe, S., and J.C. Weeks. 2002. Views of American oncologists about the purposes of clinical trials. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94: 1847-1853.
9. Jonsen, A.R. 1998. The birth of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Kim, S.Y.H., S. Frank, R. Holloway, C. Zimmerman, R. Wilson, and K. Kieburtz. 2005. Science and ethics of sham surgery: A survey of Parkinson disease clinical researchers. Archives of Neurology 62: 1357-1360.
11. Kim, S., R. Holloway, S. Frank, C. Beck, C. Zimmerman, R. Wilson, and K. Kieburtz. 2006. Volunteering for early phase gene transfer research in Parkinson disease. Neurology 66: 1010-1015.
12. Kimmelman, J. 2005. Recent developments in gene transfer: Risk and ethics. BMJ 330: 79-82.
13. King, N.M.P. 2000. Defining and describing benefit appropriately in clinical trials. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28: 332-343.
14. King, N., G. Henderson, L. Churchill, A. Davis, S.C. Hull, D.K. Nelson, P. Parham-Vetter, B. Rothschild, M. Easter, and B. Wilfond. 2005. Consent forms and the therapeutic misconception. IRB Ethics & Human Research 27: 1-8.
15. Kipnis, K. 2003. Seven vulnerabilities in the pediatric research subject. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24: 107-120.
16. Kodish, E., C. Stocking, M. Ratain, A. Kohrman, and M. Siegler. 1992. Ethical issues in phase I oncology research: A comparison of investigators and institutional review board chairpersons. Journal of Clinical Oncology 10: 1810-1816.
17. Priest, S.H., H. Bonfadelli, and M. Rusanen. 2003. The "trust gap" hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis 23: 751-766.
18. Shah, S., A. Whittle, B. Wilfond, G. Gensler, and D. Wendler. 2004. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? JAMA 291: 476-482.
19. van Luijn, H.E.M., N.K. Aaronson, R.B. Keus, and A.W. Musschenga. 2006. The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: A case study. Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 170-176.
20. van Luijn, H.E.M., A.W. Musschenga, R.B. Keus, W.M. Robinson, and N.K. Aaronson. 2002. Assessment of the risk/benefit ratio of phase II cancer clinical trials by Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. Annals of Oncology 13: 1307-1313.
21. Weinfurt, K.P. 2004. Discursive versus information-processing perspective on a bioethical problem: The case of 'unrealistic' patient expectations. Theory and Psychology 14: 191-203.