PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Financial conflicts of interest in biomedical human subject research.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the past, present and future of financial conflict of interest regulation in biomedical human subject testing. Part I will briefly review the forces giving rise to the current controversy. Part II will examine the more influential ethical codes on human subject testing and argue that they are inconclusive on the subject of financial conflicts of interest. Part III will examine the various regulations now in place and identify their serious flaws. Part IV will critique the leading proposals for reform. The Conclusion will synthesize the best features of the various proposals for reform and suggest improvements left unaddressed by these proposals.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2004

Minimal risk as an international ethical standard in research.

Classifying research proposals by risk of harm is fundamental to the approval process and the most pivotal risk category in most regulations is that of "minimal risk." If studies have no more than a minimal risk, for example, a nearly worldwide consensus exists that review boards may sometimes: (1) expedite review, (2) waive or modify some or all elements of informed consent, or (3) enroll vulnerable subjects including healthy children, incapacitated persons and prisoners even if studies do not hold out direct benefits to them. The moral and social purposes behind this threshold are discussed along with relevant views from the National Commission, NBAC, NHRPAC, Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, The Nuremberg Code, and The WMA's Declaration of Helsinki. Representative policies from Australia, Canada, South Africa, the U.S., and CIOMS are reviewed revealing different understandings of this sorting threshold. Six of nine frequently cited interpretations of "minimal risk" are untenable. The "absolute" interpretation of the "routine examination" standard is defended as best.

Ethics Committees, Research↗
PubMed1999

Challenges to human subject protections in US medical research.

United States regulations governing federally supported research with human subjects derive in part from 2 international codes, the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki. The Declaration of Helsinki states that "concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society." The concept of minimal risk and the principle of informed consent are the key means by which US federal regulations seek to protect the rights and welfare of the individual in the research setting. Current trends in medical research-including increased funding, ever-greater capabilities of computers, development of new clinical tools that can also be used in research, and new research tools developed through research itself are creating greater demand for human subjects, for easier recruitment and conscription of these subjects, and for unimpeded access to patient medical records and human biological materials. Nationally and internationally, there are new pressures to subordinate the interests of the subject to those of science and society. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which is about to undertake a comprehensive review of the US system of human subject protections, faces a daunting task.

Advisory Committees↗