PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Karen J Maschke

Publications and source records attributed to Karen J Maschke.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Ethical issues in tissue banking for research: the prospects and pitfalls of setting international standards.

Bauer, Taub, and Parsi's review of an international sample of standards on informed consent, confidentiality, commercialization, and quality of research in tissue banking reveals that no clear national or international consensus exists for these issues. The authors' response to the lack of uniformity in the meaning, scope, and ethical significance of the policies they examined is to call for the creation of uniform ethical guidelines. This raises questions about whether harmonization should consist of voluntary international standards or international regulations that include an official oversight mechanism and sanctions for noncompliance, and about who should participate in the harmonization process. Moreover, the normative assumptions and political dynamics that shape global policymaking need to be addressed. This commentary explores the policy implications and normative questions raised by the idea of international ethical guidelines for the use of biotechnologies and biotechnological resources such as stored samples of human tissue.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2002

National practices regarding payment to research subjects for participating in pediatric research.

OBJECTIVE: Payment to subjects for participation in research is reportedly common, but no published data documents the nature of this practice. Institutional review boards (IRBs) are responsible for ensuring both the safety and voluntary participation of research subjects, yet guidance from federal and expert pediatric sources regarding appropriate payment approaches is conflicting. Ethical issues of payment for participation of adult versus pediatric research subjects may differ. This empirical study sought to examine current payment practices for participation in pediatric research as reported by IRBs. DESIGN: An 18-question survey regarding payment practices for participation in pediatric research was sent to IRB chairs at member institutions of the National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions, and to a systematic random sample of IRB chairs listed with the Office for Protection From Research Risks. Descriptive, nonparametric, and qualitative analyses were used to describe institution types, payment practices, and correlations among responses. RESULTS: Data from 128 institutions that conduct pediatric research revealed that payment for participation in pediatric research was allowed by 66% of responding institutions, and practices varied widely among institutions. Most responding IRBs that allowed payment required disclosure of payment before enrollment (during the consent process), following federal guidelines more closely than American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines. An IRB's perception of potential benefits or harms of a study correlated with the amount of payment approved. CONCLUSIONS: IRBs must balance the need to recruit pediatric research subjects against the risk of undue influence during the recruitment process. Federal guidelines and expert pediatric opinion differ in recommendations regarding payment; responding IRBs appeared to follow federal guidelines more closely than guidelines proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Child↗