Protecting human subjects: How much responsibility falls to editorial boards?

American Journal of Industrial Medicine

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 172-175

  Wegman, David H ^a   Major, Elaine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL   (United States)

Author keywords

Human subjects; IRB

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EDITORIAL POLICIES; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 59449084958     PISSN: 02713586     EISSN: 10970274     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20652     Document Type: Note

References (23)

1. Amdur RJ, Biddle C, 1997. Institutional review board approval and publication of human research results. JAMA 277(11).
2. Burke GS, 2005. Looking into the institutional review board: Observations from both sides of the table. J Nutr 135:921-924.
3. Council for International Organizations ofMedical Sciences (CIOMS). 1991. International Guidelines for Ethical Review of Epidemiological Studies. Geneva.
4. Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences. 2002. Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). Geneva: International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects.
5. Council of Europe. 1997. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. European Treaty Series-No. 164. Oviedo, 4 April 1997.
6. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1979. Office of the Secretary, Protection of Human Subjects. Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Report of the National Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 78-0013 and No. (OS) 78-0014. 18 April 1979.
7. Emanuel EJ, Lemmens T, Elliot C. 2006. Should society allow research ethics boards to be run as for-profit enterprises? PLoS Med 3(7):e309. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030309.
8. Freeman SR, Lundahl K, Schilling LM, Jensen JD, Dellavalle RP. 2008. Human research review committee requirements in medical journals. Clin Invest Med 31(1):E49-E54.
9. Graham DG, Pace W, Kappus J, Holcomb S, Galliher JM, Duclos CW, Bonham AJ. 2005. Institutional Review Board Approval of Practice- based Research Network Patient Safety Studies. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Marks ES, Lewin DI, editors. Advances in patient safety: From research to implementation. Vol. 3, Concepts and methodology.AHRQ Publication No. 05-0021-3. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
10. Green LA, Lowery JC, Kowalski CP, Wyszewianski L. 2006. Impact of Institutional Review Board Practice Variation on Observational Health Services Research. Health Serv Res 41:214-230.
11. Hirshon JM, Krugman SD, Witting MD, Furuno JP, Limcangco MR, Perisse AR, Rasch E. 2002. Variability in institutional review board assessment of minimal-risk research. Acad Emerg Med 9:1417-1420.
12. Hueston WJ, Mainous AG, Weiss BD, Macaulay AC, Hickner J, Sherwood RA. 2006. Protecting participants in family medicine research: A consensus statement on improving research integrity and participant's safety in educational research, community-based participatory research, and practice network research. Fam Med 39:116-120.
13. International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). 1996. Note for Guidance on Good Clinical Practice (CPMP/ICH/135/95) 1 May 1996.
14. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, Beck SS, Beaty T, Cutting G. 2003. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA 290:360-366.
15. Milham S, Morgan LL. 2008. A new electromagnetic exposure metric: High frequency voltage transients associated with increased cancer incidence in teachers in a California school. Am J Ind Med 51(8):579-586.
16. Shah S, Whittle A, Wilfond B, Gensler G, Wendler D. 2004. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? JAMA 291:476-482.
17. Silverstein M, Banks M, Fish S, Bauchner H. 2008. Variability in institutional approaches to ethics review of community-based research conducted in collaboration with unaffiliated organizations. J Empirical Res Hum Res Ethics 3:69-76.
18. The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2007. PLoS Medicine's Advisory Group on Publication Ethics. PLoS Med 4(2):e81. 10.1371/journal.pmed. 0040081.
19. Valji K. 2002. IRB approval-who needs it? J Vasc Interv Radiol 13: 225-226.
20. Vanderpool HY. 2002. An ethics primer for institutional review boards. In: Bankert EA, Amdur RJ, editors. Institutional Review Board Management and Function, 2nd edition, Sudbury MA: Jones and Bartlett. Weiss BD, Smith MA, Magill MK. 2005. Journal Policy Statement - IRB approval for educational research. Fam Med 37:219-220.
21. World Health Organization (WHO). 1995. Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) for Trials on Pharmaceutical Products. Annex 3 of The Use of Essential Drugs. Sixth Report of the WHO Expert Committee. Geneva: World Health Organization. p 97-137.
22. World Medical Association, 1995. Declaration of Lisbon on the Rights of the Patient. Adopted by the 34th World Medical Assembly, Lisbon, Portugal, September/October 1981 and amended by the 47th General Assembly, Bali, Indonesia, September 1995.
23. World Medical Association. 1996. Declaration of Helsinki: Recommendations Guiding Physicians in Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Adopted by the 18th World Medical Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964. Amended by the 29th World Medical Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975; the 35th World Medical Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983; the 41st World Medical Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989; and the 48th General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996.