EmanuelE. J.GradyC., and CrouchR. A., eds., Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); BeecherH. K., “Ethics and Clinical Research,”New England Journal of Medicine274, no. 24 (1966):1354–1360.
2.
McCarthyC. R., “The Origins and Policies that Govern Institutional Review Boards,” in EmanuelE. J.GradyC., and CrouchR. A., eds., Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008): 541–551.
3.
CarpenterD. P., Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).
4.
World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, 1975, available at <http://ethics.iit.edu/indexOfCodes-2.php?key=24_552_1129> (last visited December 7, 2012). Principle 1.2 reads, “The design and performance of each experimental procedure involving human subjects should be clearly formulated in an experimental protocol which should be transmitted to a specially appointed independent committee for consideration, comment and guidance.”
5.
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979).
6.
See McCarthy, supra note 3.
7.
Id.
8.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Moral Science: Protecting Participants in Human Subjects Research, December 2011: at 42.
9.
StewartD. J.WhitneyS. N., and KurzrockR., “Equipoise Lost: Ethics, Costs, and the Regulation of Cancer Clinical Research,”Journal of Clinical Oncology28, no. 17 (2010): 2925–2935; WhitneyS. N. and SchneiderC. E., “Viewpoint: A Method to Estimate the Cost in Lives of Ethics Board Review of Biomedical Research,”Journal of Internal Medicine269, no. 4 (2011): 396–402; SilbermanG. and KahnK. L., “Burdens on Research Imposed by Institutional Review Boards: The State of the Evidence and Its Implications for Regulatory Reform,”Milbank Quarterly89, no. 4 (2011): 599–627; Infectious Diseases Society of America, “Grinding to a Halt: The Effects of the Increasing Regulatory Burden on Research and Quality Improvement Eforts,”Clinical Infectious Diseases49, no. 3 (2009): 328–335.
10.
See Silberman and Kahn, supra note 9; BurmanW. J.RevesR. R.CohnD. L., and SchooleyR. T., “Breaking the Camel's Back: Multicenter Clinical Trials and Local Institutional Review Boards,”Annals of Internal Medicine134, no. 2 (2001): 152–157; GoldJ. L. and DewaC. S., “Institutional Review Boards and Multisite Studies in Health Services Research: Is There a Better Way?”Health Services Research40, no. 1 (2005): 291–307; VickC. C.FinanK. R.KiefeC.NeumayerL., and HawnM. T., “Variation in Institutional Review Processes for a Multisite Observational Study,”American Journal of Surgery190, no. 5 (2005): 805–809; HumphreysK.TraftonJ., and WagnerT. H., “The Cost of Institutional Review Board Procedures in Multicenter Observational Research,”Annals of Internal Medicine139, no. 1 (2003): 77.
11.
See Gold and Dewa, supra note 10.; McWilliamsR.Hoover-FongJ., and HamoshA., “Problematic Variation in Local Institutional Review of a Multicenter Genetic Epidemiology Study,”JAMA290, no. 3 (2003): 360–366; RogersA. S.SchwartzD. F.WeissmanG., and EnglishA., “A Case Study in Adolescent Participation in Clinical Research: Eleven Clinical Sites, One Common Protocol, and Eleven IRBs,”IRB: Ethics and Human Research21, no. 1 (1999): 6–10; StairT. O.ReedC. R.RadeosM. S.KoskiG., and CamargoC. A., “Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Clinical Trial,”Academic Emergency Medicine8, no. 6 (2001): 636–641; StarkA. R.TysonJ. E., and HibberdP. L., “Variation Among Institutional Review Boards in Evaluating the Design of a Multicenter Randomized Trial,”Journal of Perinatology30, no. 3 (2010): 163–169; FinchS. A.BarkinS. L., and WassermanR. C., “Effects of Local Institutional Review Board Review on Participation in National Practice-based Research Network Studies,”Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine163, no. 12 (2009): 1130–1134; SilvermanH.HullS. C., and SugarmanJ., “Variability Among Institutional Review Boards' Decisions Within the Context of a Multicenter Trial,”Critical Care Medicine29, no. 2 (2001): 235–241; BurmanW.BreeseP., and WeisS., “The Effects of Local Review on Informed Consent Documents from a Multicenter Clinical Trials Consortium,”Controlled Clinical Trials24, no. 3 (2003): 245–255; MansbachJ.AcholonuU.ClarkS., and CamargoC., “Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard, Observational, Pediatric Research Protocol,”Academic Emergency Medicine14, no. 4 (2007): 377–380; KimberlyM. B.HoehnK. S.FeudtnerC.NelsonR. M., and SchreinerM., “Variation in Standards of Research Compensation and Child Assent Practices: A Comparison of 69 Institutional Review Board-Approved Informed Permission and Assent Forms for 3 Multicenter Pediatric Clinical Trials,”Pediatrics117, no. 5 (2006): 1706–1711.
12.
ChristopherP. P.FotiM. E.Roy-BujnowskiK., and AppelbaumP. S., “Consent Form Readability and Educational Levels of Potential Participants in Mental Health Research,”Psychiatric Services58, no. 2 (2007): 27–232; SharpS. M., “Consent Documents for Oncology Trials: Does Anybody Read These Things?”American Journal of Clinical Oncology27, no. 6 (2004): 570–575; SchneiderC. E., “The Hydra,”Hastings Center Report40, no. 4 (2010): 9–11.
13.
See Burman, supra note 11; Paasche-OrlowM. K.TaylorH. A., and BrancatiF. L., “Readability Standards for Informed-Consent Forms as Compared with Actual Readability,”New England Journal of Medicine348, no. 8 (2003): 721–726.
14.
GunsalusC. K.BrunerE. M., and BurbulesN. C., “Mission Creep in the IRB World,”Science312, no. 5779 (2006): 1441.
15.
See Silberman and Kahn, supra note 9; See Humphreys, supra note 10; SugarmanJ.GetzK., and SpeckmanJ. L., “The Cost of Institutional Review Boards in Academic Medical Centers,”New England Journal of Medicine352, no. 17 (2005): 1825–1827; EmanuelE. J.SchnipperL. E.KaminD. Y.LevinsonJ., and LichterA. S., “The Costs of Conducting Clinical Research,”Journal of Clinical Oncology21, no. 22 (2003): 4145–4150; WagnerT. H.BhandariA.ChadwickG. L., and NelsonD. K., “The Cost of Operating Institutional Review Boards (IRBs),”Academic Medicine78, no. 6 (2003): 638–644.
16.
JonasH., “Philosophical Refections on Experimenting with Human Subjects,”Daedalus98, no. 2 (1969): 219–247; JoffeS. and MillerF. G., “Bench to Bedside: Mapping the Moral Terrain of Clinical Research,”Hastings Center Report32, no. 2 (2008): 30–42.
17.
TuJ. V.WillisonD. J., and SilverF. L., “Impracticability of Informed Consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network,”N. Engl. J. Med.350, no. 14 (2004): 1414–1421; ForsbergStjernschantz J.HanssonM. G., and ErikssonS., “Biobank Research: Who Benefits from Individual Consent?”British Medical Journal343 (2011): D5647.
18.
KuehnB. M., “DHHS Halts Quality Improvement Study: Policy May Hamper Tests of Methods to Improve Care,”JAMA299, no. 9 (2008): 1005–1006.
19.
NessR. B., “Influence of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on Health Research,”JAMA298, no. 18 (2007): 2164–2170.
20.
FostN. and LevineR. J., “The Dysregulation of Human Subjects Research,”JAMA298, no. 18 (2007): 2196–2198.
21.
EmanuelE. J. and MenikofffJ., “Reforming the Regulations Governing Research with Human Subjects,”N. Engl. J. Med.365, no. 12 (2011): 1145–1150; Department of Health and Human Services, “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators,”Federal Register76, no. 143 (2011): 44512–44531.
22.
See Emanuel and Menikofff, supra note 21.
23.
KimS.UbelP., and De VriesR., “Pruning the Regulatory Tree,”Nature457, no. 7229 (2009): 534–535.
24.
WhitneyS. N. and SchneiderC. E., “Was the Institutional Review Board System a Mistake?”Clinical Infectious Diseases49, no. 12 (2009): 1957; BurmanW. and DaumR., “Reply to Whitney and Schneider,”Clinical Infectious Diseases49, no. 12 (2009): 1957–1958.
25.
HamburgerP., “Getting Permission,”Northwestern University Law Review101, no. 2 (2007): 405–492.
26.
EmanuelE. J.WendlerD., and GradyC., “What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?”JAMA283, no. 20 (2000): 2701–2711.
MillerF. G. and WertheimerA., “Facing Up to Paternalism in Research Ethics,”Hastings Center Report37, no. 3 (2007): 24–34.
30.
GlickmanS. W.McHutchisonJ. G., and PetersonE. D., “Ethical and Scientific Implications of the Globalization of Clinical Research,”New England Journal of Medicine360, no. 8 (2009): 816–823.
31.
See Presidential Commission, supra note 8.
32.
EpsteinR. A., “Defanging IRBs: Replacing Coercion with Information,”Northwestern University Law Review101, no. 2 (2007): 735–748.
33.
See Miller and Wertheimer, supra note 29.
34.
See National Commission, supra note 5.
35.
See Miller and Wertheimer, supra note 29, at 24.
36.
Id.
37.
See Emanuel and Menikofff, supra note 21; Institute of Medicine, Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2002).
38.
See Kim, supra note 23.
39.
See Emanuel and Menikoff, supra note 21; See Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 21.
40.
StroustrupA.KornetskyS., and JoffeS., “Knowledge of Regulations Governing Pediatric Research: A Pilot Study,”IRB: Ethics and Human Research30, no. 5 (2008): 1–7.
41.
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 37: at 90–91.
42.
See Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 21.
43.
TaylorH. A., “Moving Beyond Compliance: Measuring Ethical Quality to Enhance the Oversight of Human Subjects Research,”IRB29, no. 5 (2007): 9–14; ColemanC. and BouësseauM., “How Do We Know that Research Ethics Committees Are Really Working? The Neglected Role of Outcomes Assessment in Research Ethics Review,”BMC Medical Ethics9, no. 1 (2008): 6.