Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Regulations and policies governing research, codes of ethics, and the research ethics literature reflect the need to provide special protections to vulnerable research participants. Nevertheless, there is disagreement about who is vulnerable and why, what protections are appropriate, and when to disallow research involving vulnerable persons. The Common Rule (CR) governs much of the human research conducted in the United States and the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) oversees much of this research. The CR requires special protections for pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, prisoners, and children. Although it also requires that researchers employ “additional safeguards” to protect other vulnerable persons, it does not define vulnerability or identify appropriate “safeguards.” Very little is known about how OHRP interprets the “additional safeguards” requirement. We examined all letters of determination posted on the OHRP website between July 1, 2000 and December 31, 2006 (n = 636) to study the extent to which OHRP addressed, in its audits and investigations, the requirement to protect vulnerable persons. The letters did not reveal guidance on understanding vulnerability, determining whether a study includes vulnerable persons or protecting vulnerable participants. If institutions and investigators are to fulfill the ethical obligation to provide appropriate safeguards when conducting research on vulnerable persons, they must develop and implement mechanisms to identify and address vulnerability.

Keywords

Office for Human Research Protections vulnerable participants vulnerability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aaron

H. J.

(2000). The plight of academic medical centers. The Brookings Institution Policy Brief Series no. 69. Retrieved April 16, 2007 from http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2000/05useconomics_aaron.aspx.

Alzheimer's Association. (1997). Ethical issues in dementia research (with special emphasis on “informed consent”). Retrieved November 29, 2007 from http://www.alz.org/national/documents/statements_ethicalissues.pdf.

Berry

S. R.

(2004). For purposes of research, palliative care patients should not be considered a vulnerable population. Clinical Oncology, 16(3), 223–224.

Borror

Carome

McNeilly

, & Weil

(2003). A review of OHRP compliance oversight letters. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 25(5), 1–4.

Burris

& Welsh

(2007). Regulatory paradox: A review of enforcement letters issued by the Office for Human Research Protection. Northwestern Law Review, 101(2), 643–685.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (1998). Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Retrieved July 3, 2008 from http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/policystatement.cfm.

Corbie-Smith

Miller

W. C.

, & Ransohoff

D. F.

(2004). Interpretations of “appropriate” minority inclusion in clinical research. American Journal of Medicine, 116(4), 249–252.

Council of Europe (1997). Additional protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning biomedical research (CETS no. 195). Retrieved July 3, 2008 from http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/195.htm.

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) (2002). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Retrieved July 3, 2008 from http://www.cioms.ch/frame_guidelines_nov_2002.htm.

10.

DuBois

J. M.

Callahan

, & Cottler

(unpublished manuscript). Additional safeguards in research: The preferences of vulnerable participants.

11.

Fost

& Levine

R. J.

(2007). The dysregulation of human subjects research. JAMA, 298(18), 2196–2198.

12.

Hawryluck

(2004). People at the end of life are a vulnerable research population. Clinical Oncology, 16(3), 225–226.

13.

Kipnis

(2001). Vulnerability in research subjects: A bioethical taxonomy. In: Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants (Vol. II: Commissioned Papers and Staff Analysis) (pp. G1–G13). Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

14.

Kishore

R. R.

(2006). Biomedical research and mining of the poor: The need for their exclusion. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 175–183.

15.

Kopelman

L. M.

(2004). Adolescents as Doubly-Vulnerable Research Subjects. American Journal of Bioethics, 4(1), 50–52.

16.

Landis

J. R.

, and Koch

G. G.

(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

17.

Leavitt

F. J.

(2006). Is any medical research population not vulnerable? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 15(1), 81–88.

18.

Levine

Faden

R. R.

Grady

Hammerschmidt

Eckenwiler

, & Sugarman

(2004). The limitations of “vulnerability” as a protection for human research participants. American Journal of Bioethics, 4(3), 44–49.

19.

Luebbert

Tait

R. C.

Chibnall

J. T.

, & Deshields

T. L.

(2008). IRB member judgments of decisional capacity, coercion, and risk in medical and psychiatric studies. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(1), 15–24.

20.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). (2001). Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

21.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) (1998). Research Involving Persons with Mental Disorders that May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

22.

Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) (Formerly: Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR)). (1993). IRB Guidebook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

23.

Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) (formerly: Office for Protection from Research Risks [OPRR]). (1995). Obtaining and documenting informed consent from subjects who do not speak English. Retrieved November 30, 2006 from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/ic-non-e.htm.

24.

Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) (formerly: Office for Protection from Research Risks [OPRR]). (1996). Informed consent requirements in emergency research. Retrieved October 31, 2006 from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/hsdc97–01.htm.

25.

Quest

& Marco

C. A.

(2003). Ethics seminars: Vulnerable populations in emergency medicine research. Academic Emergency Medicine, 10(11), 1294–1298.

26.

Sachs

G. A.

(2007). Position statement: Informed consent for research on human subjects with dementia. American Geriatrics Society. Retrieved August 30, 2007 from http://www.americangeriatrics.org/products/positionpapers/infconsent.shtml.

27.

Sieber

J. E.

(2008). Protecting the vulnerable: Who are they? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(1): 1–2.

28.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Code of Federal Regulations, Protection of Human Subjects: 45 CFR 46. Retrieved December 5, 2006 from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm.

29.

Walsh

and Ross

L. F.

(2003). Are minority children under- or overrepresented in pediatric research? Pediatrics, 112(4), 890–895.

30.

World Medical Association. (2000). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Retrieved July 3, 2008 from http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm.

Federal Interpretation and Enforcement of Protections for Vulnerable Participants in Human Research

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References