Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:58:00.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Currents in Contemporary Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

T. Howard Stone
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In what is clearly an important development related to research integrity and the protection of human research subjects, the U.S. government has instituted two new training requirements as a condition of receiving federal financial support. First, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is requiring, as a condition of funding, that key research personnel involved in human subject research complete education “in the protection of human subjects.” Evidence that key personnel have completed this training must be provided in NIH grant applications or contract proposals.

The NIH education policy will eventually be superseded by a more broadly applicable instructional policy for the “responsible conduct of research,” which will be promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Research Integrity and the Public Health Service (PHS). The instructional policy will apply to all persons engaged in any research or research training with PHS support. Presently, the only version of the policy is in draft form.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , Spring 2001 , pp. 94 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Mark A. Rothstein serves as the section editor for “Currents in Contemporary Ethics.” Professor Rothstein is the Herbert F. Boehl Chair of Law and Medicine at the University of Louisville School of Medicine in Kentucky.

References

National Institutes of Health, U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Required Education in the Protection of Human Research Participants, NIH Guide OD-00-039 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, June 5, 2000): At “Implementation” [hereinafter cited as NIH, Required Education].Google Scholar
Public Health Service, U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, PHS Draft Policy on Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research, NIH Guide OD-00-045 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, July 17, 2000) [hereinafter cited as PHS, Draft Policy]. For purposes of this article, the terms “responsible conduct of research” and “responsible research” will include human subject protection, which is consistent with the PHS draft policy. See id. at sec. II, VII(6).Google Scholar
Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Notice of Suspension of PHS Policy, NIH Guide OD-01-020 (February 22, 2001).Google Scholar
Bell, J., Whiton, J., and Connelly, S., NIH Office of Extramural Research, Final Report: Evaluation of NIH Implementation of Section 491 of the Public Health Services Act, Mandating a Program of Protection for Research Subjects (Washington, D.C.: NIH Office of Extramural Research, 1998): 46–47, 59–60; Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1998): 8 [hereinafter cited as OIG 1998 Report].Google Scholar
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Protecting Human Subjects: Status of Recommendations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 2000) [hereinafter cited as OIG 2000 Report].Google Scholar
NIH, Required Education, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Id. at “Implementation.”Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
NIH Office of Extramural Research, “Clarification on Required Education in the Protection of Human Research Participants,” OER Grants: Current News Flashes & Archives (September 14, 2000), available on-line at <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/newsarchive_2000.htm#20000914>..>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
“Sample Letter to Document Training in Research Conduct,” NIAID Council News (September 19, 2000), available on-line at <http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/newsletters/nl090700/sample.htm>..>Google Scholar
PHS, Draft Policy, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Id. at sec. IVGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at sec. II.Google Scholar
Id. at sec. VI(A).Google Scholar
Id. at sec. VII(1)–(10).Google Scholar
Id. at sec. III.Google Scholar
Id. at sec. VI(B).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at sec. X(B).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at sec. X(A).Google Scholar
Id. at sec. X(A)(2), (3).Google Scholar
Id. at sec. X(A)(4).Google Scholar
Id. at sec. IX(B).Google Scholar
Id. at n.1. Because the PHS instructional policy will eventually supersede the current NIH education policy, most analysis here is reserved for the PHS policy; any relevant differences will be mentioned.Google Scholar
OIG 2000 Report, supra note 5, at 2.Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, Final Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1995): 817 [hereinafter cited as ACHRE, Final Report) (recommending the development of effective strategies for changing the existing culture and placing ethics at the center of research conduct, including mandating the “teaching of research ethics”); OIG 1998 Report, supra note 4, at 8. See also Bell, et al., supra note 4, at 59–60.Google Scholar
See generally ACHRE, Final Report, supra note 31, at 81–223 (reviewing ethics in human subject research from the 1940s to the 1970s); Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research, Kahn, J.P., Mastroianni, A.C., and Sugarman, J., eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) (providing some historical background on research exploitation involving vulnerable populations).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.103 (2000) (stating in relevant part that “[e]ach institution engaged in research which is covered by this policy, and which is conducted or supported by a Federal Department or Agency shall provide written assurance satisfactory to the Department or Agency head that it will comply with the requirements set forth in this policy”). See also 45 C.F.R. § 46.109 (“IRB review of research”); 45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (“General requirements for informed consent”); 45 C.F.R. § 46.113 (“Suspension or termination of IRB approval of research”); 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq. (“Animal Welfare Act” (1966)); National Institutes of Health, Dep't of Health & Human Services, Public Health Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (rev. 1986) (supplying the principles and procedures on the use and care of vertebrate animals in research); 42 C.F.R. § 50.101 et seq. (setting forth institutional responsibilities for investigating research misconduct).Google Scholar
Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform: Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Comm. on Government Reform and Oversight (1998) (testimony of George Grob, Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services).Google Scholar
OIG 1998 Report, supra note 4, app. at D-14 (1998) (comments by the Public Citizen's Health Research Group); see Kahn, et al., supra note 32, at 166.Google Scholar
Id. at ii-iii. But see id. at app. at D-20, D-30, and D-38 (comments by Applied Research Ethics National Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Consortium of Independent Review Boards, criticizing some of the generalizations made in the OIG's report).Google Scholar
OIG 2000 Report, supra note 5, at 1–3.Google Scholar
NIH, Required Education, supra note 1.Google Scholar
PHS, Draft Policy, supra note 2, at sec. IV. However, the policy “does not limit the authority of an institution to impose more detailed or broader requirements of RCR [responsible conduct of research] education.” Id. In fact, the policy provides that, as part of an institution's certification of compliance to PHS, the institution describe how the instructional program is “being applied to those research staff not supported by PHS funds.” Id. at sec. X(A)(1).Google Scholar
See, e.g., OIG 2000 Report, supra note 5, at 3 (observing that the Common Rule [or 45 C.F.R. § 46, Subpart A], which serves as the “basis of a common Federal policy on human-subject protections,” is a significant barrier to making the recommended changes pertaining to research oversight because any change to the Common Rule requires the concurrence of all seventeen agencies adhering to the rule).Google Scholar
See, e.g., OIG 1998 Report, supra note 4. For a sample of other literature demonstrating the extent of our knowledge regarding deficiencies in research oversight or important issues in research integrity, see generally Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Institutional Review Boards: Promising Approaches (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1998); Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Institutional Review Boards: Their Role in Reviewing Approved Research (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1998); Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Institutional Review Boards: The Emergence of Independent Boards (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1998); Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication, Jones, A.H. and McLellan, F., eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2000); Society for Neuroscience, Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication (1st ed.) (1998), available on-line at <http://www.sfn.org/guidelines/guidelines-Final.pdf>; Sieber, J.E., Planning Ethically Responsible Research: A Guide for Students and Internal Review Boards (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992); and Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences et al., On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995).Google Scholar
PHS, Draft Policy, supra note 2, at sec. VI(A). These include data acquisition, management, sharing, and ownership; mentor/trainee relationships; publication practices and responsible authorship; peer review; collaborative science; human subjects; research involving animals; research misconduct; conflict of interest and commitment; and compliance with existing PHS and institutional policies. Id.Google Scholar
Id. at sec. IX(C).Google Scholar
At least the NIH policy suggests that “some [investigators] may elect more intensive study if their work involves especially difficult topics or special populations.” NIH, Required Education, supra note 1, at “Educational Resources.” But such intensive study should be required, not elective.Google Scholar
NIH, Required Education, supra note 1, at “Educational Resources.”Google Scholar
PHS, Draft Policy, supra note 2, at sec. III.Google Scholar
Id. at sec. VI(B).Google Scholar
Id. at sec. IV, V(B).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46 (Subpart A); but see note 40, supra, regarding concerns about the Common Rule.Google Scholar