PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Office for Human Research Protection”

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
PubMed2001

Clinical trials integrity: a CRO perspective.

When contract research organizations (CROs) were first formed, pharmaceutical companies outsourced to them only certain aspects of the conduct of their clinical trials. At first CROs were highly specialized entities, providing, for example, either biostatistical advice, clinical research associates who monitored investigational sites for regulatory compliance, or regulatory support. Gradually, full service CROs emerged, offering a full range of services for clinical trials, including the selection of investigators and investigational sites, assistance with patient recruitment, safety surveillance and reporting, site audits, and data management and biostatistics. This evolving relationship between CROs and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries has resulted in CROs assuming more and more of the regulatory and ethical risks and responsibilities inherent in the conduct of clinical trials. In this full service role, CROs, unlike sponsors, are not interested in the outcome of study, but like sponsors, are subject to heavy regulation by the federal government, must follow applicable state laws, must respect international guidelines, and are obliged to follow their own operating procedures. Moreover, they are judged by the industry on the basis of the scope and quality of services provided, including the degree of adherence to the research protocol, regulatory requirements, and timelines; the quality of the professional working relationships with investigators and institutions, both academic and community-based; and the validity of the data. Further, CROs are subject to comprehensive audits by sponsoring companies, FDA, and other regulatory authorities. For all these reasons, CROs are being tasked with strict vigilance of all stages of the clinical trial process to ensure that the laws, regulations, and industry standards designed for the protection of human subjects and data integrity are maintained.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2005

Rethinking research ethics.

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.

Beneficence↗