Viewpoint: Are the research ethics committees working in the best interests of participants in an increasingly globalized research environment?

Journal of Internal Medicine

Volumn 269, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 392-395

  Chalmers, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Research ethics committees; Research governance

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; GENOMICS; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC;

EID: 79952673673     PISSN: 09546820     EISSN: 13652796     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02351_1.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. Brodsky J. Aesthetics and Language, in Nobel Lectures Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia 2006 at 270 (This was the Nobel Literature Laureate Lecture for 1987).
2. Singer P. on nanotechnology, 2010.
3. National Bioethics Advisory Commission Report. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants. Bethesda, MD: 2001; Prologue. See also Chalmers D. Research involving humans: a time for change? J Law Med Ethics 2004; 32: 583-95.
4. Sulston J, Ferry G. The Common Thread. London: Corgi Books, 2003.
5. Academy of Medical Sciences UK. Reaping the Rewards: A Vision for UK Medical Science. London: 2010. See also Academy of Medical Sciences UK. Review of the regulation and governance of medical research. London: 2010
6. Pogge T. World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. London: Wiley, John & Sons, 2002.
7. The Swiss-based MMV is funded through public and philanthropic donations from groups including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, USAID and the World Bank.
8. In collaboration with international organizations, Novartis provides the anti-malarial medicine Coartem® without profit for public-sector use in malaria-endemic developing countries.
9. Chalmers D, Nicol D. Commercialisation of biotechnology: public trust and research. Int J Biotechnol 2004; 6: 116-33.
10. The Academy of Medical Sciences UK. Reaping the Rewards: A Vision for UK Medical Science. London, 2010.
11. National Bioethics Advisory Commission Report. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants. Bethesda, MD: 2001. Recs 2.1, 2.2; 3.1-3.4; 3.9, 3.10; 5.1- 5.4; 6.6; and, 7.1 respectively.
12. Commonwealth Minister for Health and Family Services. Report of the Review of the Role and Functions of Institutional Ethics Committees. Canberra: AGPS, May 1995.
13. Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council. A Streamlined National Approach to Scientific and Ethics Review of Multi-centre Health and Medical Research in Australia Issues and Options. Canberra, 2007.
14. McLean SAM. Regulating research and experimentation: a view from the UK. J Law Med Ethics 2004; 32: 604-12.
15. Dawson J, Peart N. Law of Research. Dunedin: University of Otago Press, 2003; 47-60.
16. Academy of Medical Sciences UK. Review of the Regulation and Governance of Medical Research. London, 2010
17. Australian Law Reform Commission. Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information. Report 96; Rec 15; Canberra: AGPS, 2003.
18. Wendler D. Protecting Subjects who cannot give consent: towards a better standard for "minimal" risks. Hastings Cent Rep 2005; 35: 37-43. See also National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Australia: NHMRC 2007 at Chapters 2.1 and 5.1
19. Arnold D. Ethics and the Business of Biomedicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
20. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007. Australia Chapter 5.3.1-2
21. HoMER.
22. NHMRC A Streamlined National Approach to Scientific and Ethics Review of Multi-centre Health and Medical Research in Australia: Issues and Option, 2006.
23. Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council. A Streamlined National Approach to Scientific and Ethics Review of Multi-centre Health and Medical Research in Australia Issues and Options. Canberra, 2007; 1-45 at 14-15.
24. Chalmers D, Nicol D. Human genetic research databases and biobanks - towards uniform terminology and Australian best practice. J Law Med 2008; 15: 538-54.
25. Kaye J, Stranger M. Principles and Practice in Biobank Governance. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2009 and Mascalzoni D, Hicks A, Pramstaller P, Wjst M. informed consent in the genomics era. PLoS Med 2008; 5: 1302-5.
26. Taylor P. Personal genomes: when consent gets in the way. Nature 2008; 456: 32-3.
27. Hansson M. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 266-9.
28. Caulfield T. Biobanks and blanket consent: the proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. Kings Law J 2007; 18: 209-26.
29. Gibbons S, Kaye J. Governing genetic databases: collection, storage and use. Kings Law J 2007; 18: 201-8. See also Gottweis H and Petersen A. Biobanks - Governance in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Routledge, 2008
30. Knoppers B. Genomics and Public Health. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff publishers. 2007; 144.
31. Australian Law Reform Commission. Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information. Report 96, Canberra: AGPS, 2003; Rec 17-2.
32. Chima S. Regulation of biomedical research in Africa. BMJ 2006; 332: 848-51.
33. Sugarman J. Should the gold rule? Assessing "equivalent protections" for research participants cross international borders. Hastings Cent Rep 2005; 35: 12-3.
34. The Academy of Medical sciences UK. Reaping the Rewards: A Vision for UK Medical Science. London, 2010.
35. Brownsword R. Rights, Regulation and Technological Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
36. National Bioethics Advisory Commission Report, Rec 2.2 at 28.
37. Academy of Medical Sciences UK. Reaping the Rewards: A Vision for UK Medical Science. London, 2010; 2.
38. Chalmers D, Pettit P. Towards a consensual culture in the ethical review of research. Med J Aust 1998; 169: 79-82.