Suchergebnisse

The effective functioning of a research ethics committee (REC) can be evaluated using self-assessment tools. The Middle East Research Ethics Training Initiative (MERETI) tool can be used by one member, typically the Chair, to score an REC. The consistency of these scores across several members of an REC has never been evaluated. This study examined whether results would be consistent irrespective of who conducts the assessment. One REC's effective functioning was assessed by several members ( n = 13). The Chair's scores were compared with scores of other members in relation to their duration of REC membership, research ethics training, gender, and employer's institutional affiliation to the REC. The Chair's overall score was higher than the other members' scores by 11%. No significant differences in scores were obtained in relation to duration of REC membership ( p = .72), interval since last research ethics training ( p = .94), and gender ( p = .27). The MERETI tool is thus consistent irrespective of who performs the assessment.

Discusses the statutory scheme for advance directives and end-of-life decisions.

In the debate about whether to return individual genetic results to research participants, consideration of the nature of results has taken precedence over contextual factors associated with different study designs and populations. We conducted in-depth interviews with 24 individuals who participated in a genotype-driven study of cystic fibrosis: 9 of the individuals had cystic fibrosis, 15 had participated as healthy volunteers, and all had gene variants of interest to the researchers. These interviews revealed that the two groups had different ideas about the meaning-fulness of genetic results. Our findings point to the importance of understanding research context, such as participants' relationship with the researcher and whether they have the disease condition under study, when considering whether to return individual results.

The regulations governing human subjects research (45 CFR 46) remain largely unchanged since their adoption. As a first step in their revision, the federal government published the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) in 2011. The public responded with over 1100 comments. We selected a random sample of 300 comments, examining whether they addressed biospecimen research in terms of views on mandated consent, waivers of consent, use of a short general consent form, or identifiability of biospecimens. We conducted content analysis on the 109 comments that fulfilled these criteria Findings reveal little support for the proposal to mandate consent, strong support for the current waiver system, confusion about use of a standard general consent form, and disagreement about the implications of biospecimen identifiability. As the government moves ahead in its rulemaking process, it is important to consider what the public comments reveal about support and/or concerns for proposed changes.

Recruiting research participants based on genetic information generated about them in a prior study is a potentially powerful way to study the functional significance of human genetic variation. However, it also presents significant ethical challenges that, to date, have received only minimal consideration. We convened a multi-disciplinary workshop to discuss key issues relevant to the conduct and oversight of genotype-driven recruitment and to translate those considerations into practical policy recommendations. Workshop participants were invited from around the U.S., and included genomic researchers and study coordinators, research participants, clinicians, bioethics scholars, experts in human research protections, and government representatives. Discussion was directed by experienced facilitators and informed by empirical data collected in a national survey of IRB chairs and in-depth interviews with research participants in studies where genotype-driven recontact occurred. A high degree of consensus was attained on the resulting 7 recommendations, which cover informed consent disclosures and choices, the process for how and by whom participants are recontacted, the disclosure of individual genetic research results, and the importance of tailoring approaches based on specific contextual factors. These recommendations are intended to represent a balanced approach—protecting research participants, yet avoiding overly restrictive policies that hinder advancement on important scientific questions.

Parents of seriously ill children face difficult decisions when standard therapies are limited or ineffective. In their search for information, they may turn to websites created by other parents facing similar experiences. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of 21 websites created by families with children affected by cancer or genetic disease, two serious conditions with a range of treatment and clinical trial options. Our research questions address how parent authors portray serious pediatric illness, available options, parties to decision making, and sources of influence. In addition, we examine what these sites reveal about family vulnerability to various risks, particularly the risk of misunderstanding the distinction between standard treatment and research and the risk of overestimating the likely benefits of research participation, as well as whether vulnerability varies by type of condition. Our results demonstrate typically favorable views on research, but with inadequate distinctions between research and treatment and a complex set of trade-offs in consideration of research risks and potential benefits. While portraits of vulnerability emerge for both parents and children, so do portraits of strength and resilience. As a result, parents describe frustration with both under- and over-protection from research participation. Our discussion of these findings clarifies the potential for parent-authored websites to inform and influence families considering research and treatment options for their seriously ill children.

For years, genomic medicine—medicine based on the growing understanding of the genetic contribution to many diseases and conditions—has been hailed as the future of medical treatment, but it has thus far had limited effect on day-to-day medical practice. The ultimate goal of genomic medicine has always been the ability not just to identify dangerous gene mutations, but to fix them. Now CRISPR and related genome-editing technologies may have the potential to provide a safe and effective way to repair dangerous mutations. In the wake of ethically dubious experiments with human embryos in China, the international governance of human genome editing is emerging as an urgent topic for scientists, regulators, and the public. Efforts to develop a governance model are underway at national and international levels. These efforts are the subject of multiple initiatives by national and international health and science organizations and are topics of discussion at scientific conferences, summits, and meetings. This Article reports on the Authors' multi-year, interdisciplinary project to identify and investigate the practical, ethical, and policy considerations that are emerging as the greatest concerns about human genome editing, and ultimately to develop policy options. The project involves monitoring the discussions of groups, both government-sponsored and private, that are considering how genome editing should be governed; observing conferences where the topic is discussed; analyzing emerging policy reports by national and international bodies; and interviewing a wide range of stakeholders, including scientists, ethicists, and those who make and comment on public policy. The Article identifies several stakeholder concerns that are especially prominent in the research to date and begins to explore the implications of these concerns for alternative models of governance. There are current indications that, for practical purposes, a focus on "soft," hybrid forms of governance based on networks of multiple public and private ...