Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:41:06.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The FDA's Proposal for Public Disclosure of Adverse Events in Gene Therapy Trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Deborah R. Barnbaum
Deborah R. Barnbaum*
Affiliation:
Kent State University, USA
Get access

Abstract

In January 2001, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed annual public disclosure of adverse events during gene therapy and xenotransplantation trials. The proposed policy raises the following questions: (1) Is the reformed policy in accord with the FDA's long-standing informed consent policies? (2) Why pair gene therapy trials and xenotransplantation trials in the revised guidelines? (3) Why single out these trials for public disclosure of adverse events? Each question is examined, and three conclusions are drawn. First, the FDA's own policies on informed consent require prompter public disclosure of adverse events. Second, the coupling of gene therapy and xenotransplantation trials entails a conceptual mistake in the types of communities that are harmed by each therapy's related adverse events. Third, all clinical trials merit such public disclosure of adverse events, not only gene therapy and xenotransplantation trials.

Type
Informed Consent
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , September 2000 , pp. 261 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

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.)

References

Aristotle (1953). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Thomson, J.A.K.New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brainard, J. (2000a). “NIH Proposes Easing Rule on Reporting Deaths of Gene-Therapy Patients.” Chronicle of Higher Education (December 13).Google Scholar
Brainard, J. (2000b). “Will a ‘Fresh Face’ Bring a New Approach to Federal Protection of Human Subjects?” Chronicle of Higher Education (July 21).Google Scholar
CFR 21.50 (1998). “FDA Human Subject Protections.”Google Scholar
CFR 45.46 (1996). “Protection of Human Research Subjects.”Google Scholar
Davis, D.S. (2000). “Groups, Communities, and Contested Identities in Genetic Research.” Hastings Center Report 30(6):38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federal Register (2000). “Notice of Proposed Actions Under the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules (NIH Guidelines).” 65(239):77655–77659(December 12).Google Scholar
Federal Register (2001). “Availability for Public Disclosure of Certain Data and Information Related to Gene Therapy and Xenotransplantation.” 66(12):4688–4706(January 18).Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration [FDA] (1998). Guide for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators. Information sheets.Google Scholar
Gert, B. (1996). “Moral Theory and the Human Genome Project.” In Gert, B. et al. (eds.), Morality and the New Genetics. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1995). Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Beck, L.W.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Mill, J.S. (1979). Utilitarianism. Edited by Sher, G.Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Stolberg, S.G. and Gerth, J. (2000). “How Companies Stall Generics and Keep Themselves Healthy.” The New York Times (July 23).Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1974). “Community Health Nursing: Report of a WHO Expert Committee.” Tech. Rep. Series 558:7.Google Scholar