Informational risk, institutional review, and autonomy in the proposed changes to the common rule

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 17-19

  Allyse, Megan ^a   Karkazis, Katrina ^b   Lee, Sandra Soo Jin ^b   Tobin, Sara L ^b   Greely, Henry T ^c   Cho, Mildred K ^b   Magnus, David ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENTIALITY; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; PRIVACY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RESEARCH; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

CONFIDENTIALITY; DISCLOSURE; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PRIVACY; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84861927228     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration. "Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators", Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Federal Register 2011;76(143):445i2-44531. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/anprm2011page. html.
2. Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University Board of Regents, 204 P.3d 1063 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
3. Drabiak-Syed K. Lessons from Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University Board of Regents: Recognizing group, cultural, and dignitary harms as legitimate risks warranting integration into research practice. Journal of Health and Biomedical Law 2010;6(2):175-225.
4. U. S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio, March 3, 2009;
5. Couzin-Frankel J. Science gold mine, ethical minefield. Science 2009;324(5924) 166-168.
6. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, et al. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? The Lancet Oncology 2006;7(3):266-269; (Pubitemid 43286456)
7. Hofmann B. Broadening consent-and diluting ethics? Journal of Medical Ethics 2009;35(2):125-129;
8. Caulfield T. Biobanks and blanket consent: The proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. King's Law Journal 2007;18(2):209-226.
9. Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR, et al. Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: Updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circulation Cardiovascular Genetics 2010;3(6):574-580;
10. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2008;36(2) 1219-248, 211.
11. Nass SJ, Levit LA, and Gostin LO. Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health through Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009. http://www.nap. edu/openbook.php?record-id=124588cpage= 199.
12. Warwick DP. Tearoom trade: Means and ends in social research. Hastings Center Studies 1973;1(1):27-38.
13. Ubel PA, Zell MM, Miller DJ, et al. Elevator talk: Observational study of inappropriate comments in a public space. American Journal of Medicine 1995;99(2):190-194.