In February 1993, Judge Charles R. Richey of the United States District Court issued a summary judgment in the case of Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. The Secretary of Agriculture, et al. The decision, which was in favor of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to withdraw its current regulations governing exercise for dogs and the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates used for biomedical research and to issue new regulations containing only minimum, measurable (...) standards. Both plaintiffs and defendants contended that they were seeking the best interests of the laboratory animals. The issue at stake is whether animals are better protected if the government establishes limited minimal standards or is allowed to require institutions to provide additional standards, which will be judged on the basis of their effectiveness in maintaining healthy animals. The Court avoided this dispute, however, by placing primary emphasis on applying the Administrative Procedures Act and stating that it was merely interpreting the "plain meaning" of the Animal Welfare Act, as amended. In this article, arguments are presented for interpreting the law in a far more flexible way than Judge Richey did. The conclusion is also reached that there were no winners in the Animal Legal Defense Fund case and that the real losers are the laboratory animals. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:To Be or Not to Be:Waiving Informed Consent in Emergency ResearchCharles R. McCarthy (bio)The requirements for prior, legally authorized informed consent constitute a necessary condition for recruiting subjects into biomedical or behavioral research. However, informed consent requirements pose a serious problem for most research conducted in emergency care settings. For this reason, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulations governing investigational devices and the Department of Health and Human (...) Services' (HHS) regulations for the protection of human subjects allow narrow exceptions to the general requirements of informed consent. In a joint effort to clarify the applicability of the current FDA regulations and to better understand the intent of the HHS regulations as they apply to emergency research, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cosponsored a public forum on the ethical conduct of emergency research in January 1995.Although the forum was not designed as a consensus conference and participants vigorously disagreed on some of the details, a broad consensus emerged on several major points: (1) both HHS and FDA regulations should, in the immediate future, be interpreted to allow for randomized clinical trials in emergency situations so long as the subjects are carefully protected; and (2) consideration should be given to producing new, closely harmonized regulations from both agencies that will provide greater clarity concerning what kinds of emergency research may be allowed without obtaining prior informed consent.The FDA-NIH forum in January was occasioned primarily by controversy about the hypothermia research protocol described below, but it is obvious that many other kinds of emergency research also await the outcome of deliberations concerning waiver of informed consent in emergency situations. These include research into the care and treatment of: occlusive stroke; subarachnoid hemorrhage due to intracranial aneurysm; metabolic coma; status epilepticus; cardiac arrest; myocardial infarction; cardiac arrhythmia; hemorrhagic shock; pulmonary embolism; acute asthmatic attack; and poisoning. All of these conditions [End Page 155] are encountered in emergency settings where obtaining informed consent from the patient-subjects to participate in research is seldom possible, and obtaining consent from legally authorized representatives of the subjects is either not feasible, or, if obtained, is of doubtful validity.The Hypothermia Research Case and HHS RegulationsA $7.2 million grant for research on the use of hypothermia in the treatment of severe head trauma, the largest award ever made to the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston, is in danger of expiring before the study is completed. The protocol, which involves the use of cooling blankets to induce hypothermia in patients suffering from severe head injuries, is designed to test the hypothesis that: "Early lowering of the body temperature of patients suffering from severe head trauma to approximately 91 degrees Fahrenheit will slow patients' metabolism and will/will not, as a consequence, reduce the rates of both morbidity and mortality in these patients." The protocol was approved by seven Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), each of which waived the requirement to obtain informed consent from research subjects in accordance with Sec. 46. 116(d) of the HHS Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects.1However, NIH's Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR), which is responsible for assuring compliance with the HHS regulations, has taken a controversial regulatory position by requiring informed consent from a legally authorized representative of each subject to be entered in the hypothermia trial. Because the obtaining of surrogate consent has proved to be very difficult, OPRR's position has slowed the research to a point where it may have to be terminated.At issue in the controversy is a fundamental question of ethics and public policy. Is it ever permissible to involve incompetent subjects in research without either their consent, or the consent of their legally authorized representatives? Pertinent HHS regulations for the protection of human subjects seem to answer the question affirmatively by allowing local IRBs to waive some or all of the elements of informed consent under carefully limited circumstances (45 CFR 46 116(d)). Nevertheless, OPRR has signalled the research community that use of the informed consent waiver provision for the Houston hypothermia study is not permitted under the regulations. OPRR judged that the risks... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Update on Waiving Informed Consent in Emergency ResearchCharles R. McCarthyMadam: The closing statement of my article on Waiving Informed Consent in Emergency Research published in the June 1995 issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal was: "No doubt we shall hear more of this issue."Indeed, we have heard much more on this issue. (1) In May 1995, after my article had already gone to press, the Food and (...) Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) jointly published a report on the Public Forum on Informed Consent in Clinical Research Conducted in Emergency Circumstances. (2) On July 26, 1995, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published in the Federal Register a Notice of Action Related to Emergency Research Activity (60 FR 38353-54). This action constituted a waiver of the requirement to obtain prior informed consent from subjects, as required by the Department's Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46), for one specific NIH-funded project under strictly defined circumstances. (3) On September 21, 1995, FDA published a proposed rule to amend its current informed consent regulations (21 CFR 50) to permit harmonization of federal policies on emergency research and to reduce confusion as to when such research can proceed without obtaining prior informed consent from research subjects. The proposed regulation provides a narrow exception to the requirement for obtaining and documenting informed consent from each human research subject.The HHS waiver (a harbinger of a proposed amendment to its regulations) and the FDA proposed rule are intended to be harmonized so that an Institutional Review Board (IRB) in compliance with one set of regulations relative to the waiver of informed consent will be, ipso facto, in compliance with the other set of regulations.In brief: The FDA proposed amendments will allow an IRB to waive informed consent in emergency situations when:1. The human subjects are in a life threatening condition;2. Obtaining informed consent is not feasible because: (i) the subjects will not be able to provide consent because of their medical condition, (ii) the intervention must be administered before consent from legally authorized representatives is feasible, (iii) there is no reasonable way to identify prospectively the individuals likely to become eligible for the research because the emergence of the condition to be studied cannot be predicted reliably in particular individuals; [End Page 385]3. The opportunity to participate is in the interest of the subjects because: (i) a life threatening situation necessitates intervention, (ii) the risk of the intervention is reasonable in the light of what is known about the medical condition and the patient, the risks and benefits of current therapy, if any, and what is known about the risks and benefits of the proposed intervention or activity;4. The research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver;5. Additional protection of the rights and welfare of the subjects will be provided including, at least: (i) consultation (which may include consultation carried out by the IRB itself) with representatives of the communities from which the subjects will be drawn, (ii) public disclosure prior to commencement of the study sufficient to describe the study and its risks and benefits, (iii) public disclosure of sufficient information following completion of the study to apprise the community and researchers of the study and its results, and (iv) the establishment of an independent data and safety monitoring board;6. The IRB has reviewed and approved an informed consent document for use with subjects or legal representatives in situations in which obtaining such consent may be feasible for some subjects.The preamble to the proposed amendments to the regulations and the amendments themselves contain much more information than is presented here. Readers are therefore encouraged to study the proposals carefully. The public comment period ended November 6, and the FDA is expected to issue a final rule in 1996.Charles R. McCarthyKennedy Institute of Ethics Georgetown University Washington, DCCopyright © 1995 The Johns Hopkins University Press... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:When OPRR Comes Calling:Enforcing Federal Research RegulationsCharles R. Mccarthy (bio)In an update following this article, Ruth Macklin responds to the revelation that the controversial Hall-Stillman embryo-splitting experiment at George Washington University was conducted—contrary to federal regulations—without prior institutional review board (IRB) review. This revelation altered Dr. Macklin's view of the ethical status of the research. Undoubtedly such revelations also raise general questions for administrators and researchers in many institutions, (...) including, for example: How do allegations of noncompliance with federal regulations arise? When should allegations of infractions of the regulations be reported? Who has an obligation to report? To whom should reports be made? What sort of inquiry should take place? Who should conduct the inquiry? If a determination is made that infractions have occurred, what sanctions are appropriate? And, what publicity is given to the allegations, before, during, and after an evaluation?Some of these questions can be answered in a straightforward manner, while the answers to others depend on the circumstances of the case. This article provides some general answers to these questions.1BackgroundThe Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is the largest supporter of biomedical and behavioral research in the world. Somewhere between 25 and 33 percent of its medical research budget is devoted to the support of research involving human subjects. In accordance with the Public Health Service Act, DHHS has issued Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46). The DHHS Secretary has delegated responsibility for promulgating and administering the regulations to the Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR), which is located within the National Institutes of Health.When an institution receives an award from a DHHS agency to carry out research involving human subjects, it is required to negotiate, or to have on file, an "assurance of compliance" document that provides detailed information [End Page 51] specifying how the institution plans to comply with the regulations for the protection of human subjects. Most major research institutions in the country have on file a "multiple project assurance" (MPA) document, which extends DHHS regulations to all human subjects research conducted or sponsored by that institution, irrespective of the source of funding. The regulations and the assurance of compliance require any research project involving human subjects to be reviewed and approved by an institutional review board (IRB) prior to initiation of the research. In addition, the project must be re-reviewed by the IRB at appropriate intervals—in no case, less than once a year. Institutional compliance with these and other requirements of the regulations has improved during the last 30 years and appears to be at a high level. However, from time to time, allegations of noncompliance arise, as they did in the George Washington University embryo-splitting experiment, and set in motion the review process described below.How do Allegations of Noncompliance Arise?Allegations or indications of noncompliance with federal regulations for the protection of human subjects may come from a variety of sources. Most commonly, the institution's IRB discovers that research involving humans is going forward without the required prior IRB review and approval, or that approved research is being conducted in a way that is contrary to the stipulations of the IRB. The Hall-Stillman case came to the attention of George Washington University's IRB because the research protocol was submitted to the IRB after the research had been carried out. In this case, there could be no doubt that an infraction had occurred.Information about possible noncompliance also frequently derives from a funding agency's Initial Review Group (IRG) (commonly called a Study Section) when it has reason to suspect noncompliance in a project it is reviewing for possible funding. An actual case that occurred some years ago involved a research application that proposed to perform brain biopsies on normal volunteers. The IRG that reviewed the application lost little time in questioning whether an IRB had approved the protocol. In this case, it was not enough for the IRG to recommend disapproval of the proposal for funding; it also was obliged to report the possible infraction to OPRR.Whistleblowers, including research subjects, nurses, students, members of the... (shrink)