PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Committee on Genetic Experimentation”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

Limitations of informed consent for in utero gene transfer research: implications for investigators and institutional review boards.

Only 10 years after the first human gene transfer protocols were approved for adults and children, researchers have begun to consider gene transfer on the fetus. While preliminary animal research is ongoing, the enthusiasm and pace of research in this area suggest that human protocols for in utero gene transfer research may be seriously considered in the foreseeable future. Federal guidelines for fetal research rely on minimizing risk and informed consent to protect the "rights and welfare" of both the fetus and pregnant woman. However, in utero gene transfer research poses special challenges to informed consent. This research represents an innovative approach for very ill subjects and takes place in the prenatal setting. These features may converge to undermine the expectant parents' comprehension of, and voluntariness for participation in, research. In this case, informed consent may not be able to bear the weight of adequately protecting the fetus from undue research risks. To compensate for this limitation, and using the regulations for pediatric research as a guide, a greater emphasis should be placed on the benefit/harm assessment rather than informed consent. Selecting diseases/patients where good alternative treatments exist may maximize informed consent, yet this may be a trade-off that exposes the fetus to greater relative risks. On the other hand, selecting diseases/patients without good alternative treatments to prolong life may convey an overestimation of the potential benefits of these interventions, and although care should be taken to strive to improve understanding of these limitations, misunderstanding may persist. However, selecting diseases/patients with no good alternatives might make serious risks more tolerable, and this should take precedence over informed consent. The limitations of informed consent brought into focus by the special features of in utero gene transfer research may be relevant to a broader range of innovative investigations.

Clinical Protocols↗
PubMed1996

Legal and ethical challenges in gene therapy.

This paper addresses implications of applying the ethical principle of justice to gene therapy. Regarding somatic cell gene therapy as a treatment of last resort for life-threatening or seriously disabling disorders may be inconsistent with subjecting therapy to the preliminary scientific and ethical scrutiny given to research proposals. Emergency care may justify disregarding legal conditions of care, and be governed by different ethical priorities than research. Excluding gene therapy for reasons of enhancement rather than cure is widely agreed, but cosmetic procedures are considered legitimate in private markets. Intergenerational justice is a principle that may justify concentrating therapy on conditions afflicting children rather than older patients.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2001

Ethical approval for research involving geographically dispersed subjects: unsuitability of the UK MREC/LREC system and relevance to uncommon genetic disorders.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the process involved in obtaining ethical approval for a single-centre study involving geographically dispersed subjects with an uncommon genetic disorder. DESIGN: Observational data of the application process to 53 local research ethics committees (LRECs) throughout Wales, England and Scotland. The Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (MREC) for Wales had already granted approval. RESULTS: Application to the 53 LRECs required 24,552 sheets of paper and took two months of the researcher's time. The median time taken for approval was 39 days with only seven (13%) of committees responding within the recommended 21 days. In at least nineteen cases (36%) a subcommittee considered the application. Thirty-three committees (62%) accepted the proposal without amendments but, of the remainder, four (8%) requested changes outside of the remit of LRECs. DISCUSSION: Difficulties still exist with the system for obtaining ethical approval for studies involving a single centre but with patients at multiple sites, as is often required for genetic observational research. As such studies differ from true multicentre studies, it may be advantageous to develop a separate and specific process of application to ensure that resources are not unnecessarily expended in the quest for ethical approval.

Cohort Studies↗