Designing oversight for nanomedicine research in human subjects: Systematic analysis of exceptional oversight for emerging technologies

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 1449-1465

  Wolf, Susan M ^a   Jones, Cortney M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Exceptional oversight; Governance; Human subjects research; IRBs; Nanomedicine; Research oversight

Indexed keywords

EXCEPTIONAL OVERSIGHT; GOVERNANCE; HUMAN SUBJECTS; IRBS; NANOMEDICINES;

HEALTH RISKS; MEDICAL NANOTECHNOLOGY;

RESEARCH;

CANCER PATIENT; EXTRA OVERSIGHT; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HISTORY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NANOMEDICINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 79956116537     PISSN: 13880764     EISSN: 1572896X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-011-0237-y     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4:561-570
2. Bawa R (2010) Regulating nanomedicine - Can the FDA handle it? Raj Bawa Biotechnology Consulting LLC. www.medical.wesrch.com/User-images/Pdf/XXF- 1278627200.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2010
3. Bawa R, Johnson S (2008) Emerging issues in nanomedicine and ethics. In: Allhoff F, Lin P (eds) Nanotechnology & society: current and emerging ethical issues. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 207-223
4. Beach JE (1999) Restructuring of the RAC. Food Drug Law J 54:49-53
5. Bereano PL (1984) Institutional biosafety committees and the inadequacies of risk regulation. Sci Tech Hum Values 9:16-34
6. Chan VS (2006) Nanomedicine: an unresolved regulatory issue. Regul Toxicol Pharm 46:218-224
7. Charrow R (2007) Symposium: censorship and institutional review board: protection of human subjects: is expansive regulation counter-productive? Northwest Univ Law Rev 101:707-721
8. Christian MC, Goldberg J, Killen J, Abrams J, McCabe M, Mauer J, Wittes R (2002) A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med 346: 1405-1408
9. Code of Federal Regulations (1974) 29 C.F.R. part 1910
10. Code of Federal Regulations (1981) 21 C.F.R. parts 50, 56
11. Code of Federal Regulations (1991) 45 C.F.R. part 46
12. Cohen J (2006) Checking the box. HRPP Blog. hrpp.blogspot.com/2006/02/ checking-box.html. Accessed 27 Dec 2010
13. Davies JC (2009) Oversight of next generation nanotechnology. www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7316/pen-18.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2010
14. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (2009) Approaches to safe nanotechnology: managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials. DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 2009-125. www.cdc.gov/niosh/ docs/2009-125/pdfs/2009-125.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2010
15. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Office of Biotechnology Activities (OBA) (2010) Recombinant DNA research: proposed actions under the NIH guidelines for research involving recombinant DNA molecules (NIH Guidelines). Federal Register 75:21,008-21,010
16. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) (2010) Addressing biosecurity concerns related to synthetic biology, draft report. oba.od.nih.gov/biosecurity/pdf/ NSABB%20SynBio%20DRAFT%20Report-FINAL%20(2)-5-21-10.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2010
17. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) (2010) What research does the Federalwide Assurance (FWA) cover? www.answers.hhs.gov/ohrp/questions/7143. Accessed 4 Jan 2011
18. DeVille KA (2008) Regulation and medical use of nanotechnology. In: Jotterand F (ed) Emerging conceptual ethical and policy issues in bionanotechnology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 181-200
19. Drazen JM, Wood AJ (2010) Don't mess with the DSMB. N Engl J Med 363:477-478
20. Edgar H, Rothman DJ (1995) The Institutional Review Board and beyond: future challenges to the ethics of human experimentation. Milbank Q 73:489-506
21. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009) Nanomaterial research strategy. Office of Research and Development. www.epa.gov/nanoscience/files/ nanotechresearch-strategy-final.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2010
22. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010) Expanded protections for subjects in human studies research. www.epa.gov/oppfead1/guidance/human-test. htm. Accessed 28 Aug 2010
23. Fadeel B, Garcia-Bennett AE (2009) Better safe than sorry: understanding the toxicological properties of inorganic nanoparticles manufactured for biomedical application. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 62:362-374
24. Faunce T, Shats K (2007) Researching safety and cost-effectiveness in the life cycle of nanomedicine. J Law Med 15:128-135
25. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2001) PHS guideline on infectious disease issues in xenotranplantation. OMB Control No. 0910-0456. www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Xenotransplantation/UCM092858. pdf.Accessed 8 Sep 2010
26. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2006) Using a centralized IRB review process in multicenter clinical trials. www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/ Guidances/ucm127004.htm. Accessed 1 Dec 2010
27. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2010) Reporting format for nanotechnology-related information in CMC review. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research: Mapp 5015.9. www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ ManualofPoliciesProcedures/UCM214304.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2010
28. Gile TJ (2010) Complete guide to laboratory safety, 3rd edn. HCPro, Marblehead
29. Glasser SP, Williams OD (2008) Data Safety and Monitoring Boards (DSMBs). In: Glasser SP (ed) Essentials of clinical research. Springer, Berlin, pp 151-158
30. Goodman SN (2007) Stopping at nothing? Some dilemmas of data monitoring in clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 146(12):882-887
31. Gordon VM, Sugarman J, Kass N (1998) Toward a more comprehensive approach to protecting human subjects: the interface of Data Safety Monitoring Boards and Institutional Review Boards in randomized clinical trials. IRB 20(1):1-5 (Pubitemid 128704468)
32. Grizzle WE, Bell WC, Fredenburgh J (2010) General considerations concerning safety in biomedical research laboratories. In: Patrinos G, Ansorge W (eds) Molecular diagnostics, 2nd edn. Elsevier, London, pp 563-572
33. Hansen SF (2010) Multicriteria mapping of stakeholder preference in regulating nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:1959-1970
34. Harris S (2009) The regulation of nanomedicine: will the existing regulatory scheme of the FDA suffice? Richmond J Law Technol 17(2):1-25
35. Hoeltge GA (2001) Laboratory safety. In: McClatchey KD (ed) Clinical laboratory medicine, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 78-96
36. Hoet P, Legiest B, Geys J, Nemery B (2009) Do nanomedicines require novel safety assessments to ensure their safety for long-term human use? Drug Saf 32(8):625-636
37. Hoffman S (2001) Continued concern: human subject protection, the Institutional Review Board, and continuing review. Tenn Law Rev 68:725-770
38. Hook CC, DiMagno EP, Tefferi A (2004) Primer on medical genomics Part XIII: ethical and regulatory issues. Mayo Clin Proc 79:645-650 (Pubitemid 38580171)
39. Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2001) Preserving public trust: accreditation and human research participant protection programs. www.nap.edu/catalog.php? record-id=10085. Accessed 7 Dec 2010
40. Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2002) Responsible research: a systems approach to protecting research participants. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record-id= 10508. Accessed 7 Dec 2010
41. Jastone LO (2006) Federal protection for human subjects research. Novinka, New York
42. Kessler D, Siegel J, Noguchi P, Zoon K, Feiden K, Woodcock J (1993) Regulation of somatic-cell therapy and gene therapy by the Food and Drug Administration. New Eng J Med 329:1169-1173 (Pubitemid 23295460)
43. Kimmelman J (2005) Medical research, risk, and bystanders. IRB 27(4):1-6
44. King NMP (2002) RAC oversight of gene transfer research: a model worth extending? J Law Med Ethics 30:381-389
45. Klein LW, Miller DL, Balter S, Laskey W, Haines D, Norbash A, Mauro MA, Goldstein J (2009) Occupational health hazards in intervention laboratory: time for a safer environment. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20(7S):S278-S283
46. Krimsky S, Ozonoff D (1979) Recombinant DNA research: the scope and limits of regulation. Am J Pub Health 69(12):1252-1259 (Pubitemid 10192962)
47. Lawrenz F, Sobotka S (2008) Empirical analysis of current approaches to incidental findings. J Law Med Ethics 36(2):249-255
48. Lenk C, Biller-Andorno N (2007) Nanomedicine: emerging or re-emerging ethical issues? A discussion of four ethical themes. Med Health Care Philos 10:173-184
49. Levine C, Caplan AL (1986) Beyond localism: a proposal for a national research review board. IRB 8(2):7-9
50. Levine C, Faden R, Grady C, Hammerschmidt D, Eckenwiler L, Sugarman J (2004) "Special scrutiny": a targeted form of research protocol review. Ann Int Med 140:220-223
51. Lo B, Grady D (2009) Strengthening Institutional Review Board review of highly innovative interventions in clinical trials. JAMA 302(24):2697-2698
52. McLemore MR (2006) The role of the data safety monitoring board: why was the Avastin Phase III clinical trial stopped? Clin J Oncol Nurs 10(2):153-154
53. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, Beck S, Beaty T, Cutting G (2003) Problematic variation in local institutional review of multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA 290(3):360-366 (Pubitemid 37430522)
54. Morse MA, Califf RM, Sugarman J (2001) Monitoring and ensuring safety during clinical research. JAMA 285(9): 1201-1205 (Pubitemid 32198487)
55. National conference on alternative IRB models: optimizing human subject protection (2006). www.aamc.org/download/75240/data/irbconf06rpt.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2011
56. National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2009) NIH guidelines for research involving recombinant DNA molecules (NIH Guidelines). oba.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/ guidelines-02/NIH-Gdlnes-lnk-2002z.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2010
57. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (2010) FAQs: nanotechnology. www.nano.gov/html/facts/faqs.html. Accessed 28 Aug 2010
58. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) (2010) Laboratories. www.osha.gov/SLTC/laboratories/index.html. Accessed 4 Jan 2011
59. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) (2005) Special protections for children as research subjects. www.hhs.gov/ohrp/children/guidance- 407process.html. Accessed 7 Sep 2010
60. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) (2009) Assurances. www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/assurances-index.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2010
61. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) (2010) Use of a centralized Institutional Review Board (IRB) (2010). www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/correspond/ CIRB20100430.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2010
62. Office of Biotechnology Activities (OBA) (2010) Institutional Biosafety Committees. www.oba.od.nih.gov/rdna-ibc/ibc.html. Accessed 8 Dec 2010
63. Office of Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) (1996) OPRR reports.www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/hsdc97-01.htm. Accessed 30 Nov 2010
64. Ogren MP (2003) An accident waiting to happen? Scientist 17(2):30
65. Paradise J, Wolf SM, Kuzma J, Ramachandran G, Kokkoli E (2009) Symposium introduction: the challenge of developing oversight approaches to nanobiotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 37(4):543-545
66. Race MS, Hammond E (2008) An evaluation of the role and effectiveness of Institutional Biosafety Committees in providing oversight and security at biocontainment laboratories. Biosec Bioterror Biodef Strat Pract Sci 6(1):19-35 (Pubitemid 351498905)
67. Ramachandran G et al (2010) Recommendations for oversight of nanobiotechnology: dynamic oversight for complex and convergent technology. J Nanopart Res. doi:10.1007/s11051-011-0233-2
68. Resnik DB, Tinkle SS (2007) Ethics in nanomedicine. Nanomedicine 2(3):345-350 (Pubitemid 46916300)
69. Shweder RA (2006) Protecting human subjects and preserving academic freedom: prospects at the University of Chicago. Am Ethnol 33(4):507-518
70. Staggers N, McCasky T, Brazelton N, Kennedy R (2008) Nanotechnology: the coming revolution and its implication for consumers, clinicians, and informants. Nurs Outlook 56(5):268-274
71. Sydes MR, Spiegelhalter D, Altman D, Babiker A, Parmar M (2004) Systematic qualitative review of the literature on data monitoring committees for randomized controlled trials. Clin Trials 1:60-79
72. The Sunshine Project (2004) Mandate for failure: the state of Institutional Biosafety Committees in an age of biological weapons research. www.sunshine-project.org/biodefense/tspibc.pdf. Accessed 8 Dec 2010
73. U.S. Code Service (1993) 42 U.S.C.S. §289g-1
74. Virdi J (2008) Bridging the knowledge gap: examining potential limits in nanomedicine. Spontaneous Gener 2(1):25-44
75. Wagner V, Dullaart A, Boek AK, Zweck A (2006) The emerging nanomedicine landscape. Nat Biotechnol 24: 1211-1217 (Pubitemid 44564760)
76. Woodward B (1999) Challenges to human subjects protections in US medical research. JAMA 282:1947-1952