Determining risk in pediatric research with no prospect of direct benefit: Time for a national consensus on the interpretation of federal regulations
Graduate studies at Western
American Journal of Bioethics 7 (3):5 – 10 (2007)
|Abstract||United States federal regulations for pediatric research with no prospect of direct benefit restrict institutional review board (IRB) approval to procedures presenting: 1) no more than "minimal risk" (§ 45CFR46.404); or 2) no more than a "minor increase over minimal risk" if the research is commensurate with the subjects' previous or expected experiences and intended to gain vitally important information about the child's disorder or condition (§ 45CFR46.406) (DHHS 2001). During the 25 years since their adoption, these regulations have helped IRBs balance subject protections with the pursuit of scientific knowledge to advance children's welfare. At the same time, inconsistency in IRB application of these regulations to pediatric protocols has been widespread, in part because of the ambiguity of the regulatory language. During the past decade, three federally-charged committees have addressed these ambiguities: 1) the National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee (NHRPAC) (Washington, DC), 2) the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Children (Washington, DC); and 3) the United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Advisory Committee for Human Research Protections (SACHRP) (Washington, DC). The committees have reached similar conclusions on interpretation of language within regulations § § 45CFR46.404 and 406; these conclusions are remarkably consistent with recent international recommendations and those of the original National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1977) report from which current regulations are based. Drawing on the committees' public reports, this article identifies the ethical issues posed by ambiguities in regulatory language, summarizes the committees' deliberations, and calls for a national consensus on recommended criteria.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Bernice S. Elger (2008). Research Involving Prisoners: Consensus and Controversies in International and European Regulations. Bioethics 22 (4):224–238.
Dannie Di Tillio-Gonzalez Ruth L. Fischbach (2008). Harmonizing Regulations for Biomedical Research: A Critical Analysis of the Us and Venezuelan Systems. Developing World Bioethics 8 (3):167-177.
David Wendler (2004). Risk Standards for Pediatric Research: Rethinking The. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (2):187-198.
Lainie Friedman Ross (2004). Convening a 407 Panel for Research Not Otherwise Approvable: "Precursors to Diabetes in Japanese American Youth" as a Case Study. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (2):165-186.
James R. Miller (1980). Recommendations on Experimentation with Children: Some Differences in Canadian and American Approaches. [REVIEW] Bioethics Quarterly 2 (3):141-147.
Valarie Blake, Steve Joffe & Eric Kodish (2011). Harmonization of Ethics Policies in Pediatric Research. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (1):70-78.
Andrew McRae & Charles Weijer, U.S. Federal Regulations for Emergency Research: A Practical Guide and Commentary.
Bernice S. Elger & Anne Spaulding (2010). Research on Prisoners – a Comparison Between the Iom Committee Recommendations (2006) and European Regulations. Bioethics 24 (1):1-13.
Eric Chwang (2010). Against Risk-Benefit Review of Prisoner Research. Bioethics 24 (1):14-22.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #154,860 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?