IRB Advisor – June 1, 2015
June 1, 2015
View Issues
-
Billion-dollar Lawsuit Puts the Past into the Present
From an IRB and research ethics perspective, when are historical wrongdoings truly in the past?
-
Presidential Commission found gross violations in Guatemalan studies
After nine months and reviewing 125,000 pages of records, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues found that the Guatemalan studies of sexually transmitted diseases were “ethically impossible.”
-
Johns Hopkins and Rockefeller Foundation respond to lawsuits
Both Johns Hopkins University and the Rockefeller Foundation recently issued statements saying that while they condemn the Guatemalan studies that harmed hundreds of people, their institutions were not involved or responsible for those studies.
-
Informed consent issues at the front lines of clinical trials
IRBs spend considerable time poring over informed consent documents and learning all they can about a study’s informed consent process. But how do these IRB discussions and changes translate into a living informed consent process after the study is approved?
-
Online cardiovascular study shows technological evolution of research
A new research study involving social media highlights how challenging it is for IRBs when technology continually speeds up the evolution of human research protection.
-
A big data cardiovascular study plans to learn a lot
A big data cardiovascular study out of the University of California, San Francisco is enrolling volunteers from around the world in a quest to learn more about heart disease.
-
Recent measles outbreaks show dangers of bad research
IRBs need to be reminded how even the smallest of studies based on bad science or being performed by an unethical researcher can have long-lasting dangers and impact on society, a regulatory coordinator says.
-
Handling sensitive topics with teenagers raises issues
The use of digital storytelling and social media to engage a vulnerable population is part of the research frontier that is possible because of technology. It might change the way IRBs view human research, and it might make investigators of community members, one socio-behavioral scientist says.