DOCSLIB.ORG

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Resource Guide ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Resource Guide ______ Institutional Review Board (IRB) Resource Guide ______________________________ The IRB Resource Guide was compiled by Ada Sue Selwitz and Jennifer Harris, University of Kentucky Updated August 2014 Copyright 2014 by Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R), Inc. All rights reserved. This book or parts thereof may not be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission. 2014 IRB Resource Guide: Table of Contents Page Ethics of Human Subjects Research.…………………………………………….. 1-24 Nuremburg Code.……………………………………………………….… 1 Declaration of Helsinki...…………………………………………………. 2 Belmont Report.………………………………………………….……….. 10 Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences……………. 22 Basic IRB Regulations.……………………………………………………………. 25-80 FDA 21 CFR 50.………………………………………………………….. 25 FDA 21 CFR 56..………..………………………………………….…….. 40 DHHS 45 CFR 46.………..………………………………………………. 53 Selected Auxiliary Regulations/Policy …………..………………………………………... 81-298 Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).………………..…. 81-166 OHRP Human Research FAQs……...…………………………... 81 OHRP Compliance Activities – Common Findings & Guidance… 149 Food and Drug Administration (FDA).………………………………... 167-270 21 CFR 312 Investigational New Drug Application ...…………... 167 21 CFR 812 Investigational Device Exemptions ........…………… 221 Acute Care Waiver of Informed Consent Reference …………….. 246 Summary of FDA Regulations on Exemption from IND Requirements…………………....………………………………... 251 Summary of FDA Regulations on Investigational Device Exemptions and Exemption from IDE Requirements……………. 261 Summary of FDA Requirements For Investigators Who Are Also Considered Sponsors of New Devices……………………………. 265 Summary of FDA Requirements For Investigators Who Are Also Considered Sponsors of New Drugs……………………………… 268 FDA Bioresearch Monitoring Program.………………………….. 270 Other Selected Agency Information…...……………………………….. 271-298 Summary of Requirements for Department of Defense Supported Human Research………………………………………………….. 271 U.S. Dept. of Education/Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA).…………………………………………………………… 277 Summary of Department of Education (DoED) Requirements…... 280 Summary of Department of Energy (DoE) Requirements………... 282 Summary of Department of Justice (DoJ), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and Bureau of Prisons (BoP) Requirements……… 284 U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs……………………………… 289 Summary of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Requirements……………………………………………………... 290 University of Kentucky (UK) Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Guidance...................................................... 294 Table of Contents (Continued) Page IRB Expedited and Exemption Review Mechanisms …………………………... 299-312 Issues to be Addressed When Conducting Exempt Review…………….... 299 Issues to be Addressed When Conducting Expedited Review.…………... 309 Educational Materials and Useful References ………………………………….. 313-335 Educational Materials…...………………………………………………... 313 OHRP LISTSERV………………………………………………………... 320 Electronic/Web Sites……………………………………………………… 321 OHRP Contacts.……………………………………….……………………….... 326 FDA Contacts.………………………………....…………………………. 329 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Contacts.………………………….. 333 Return to TOC Return to TOC http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html Accessed 07/22/14 The Nuremberg Code 1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity. 2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature. 3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. 4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. 5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects. 6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment. 7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death. 8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment. 9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible. 10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject. "Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10", Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.] Return to TOC 1 Return to TOC http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/ Accessed July 22, 2014 WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964 and amended by the: 29th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975 35th WMA General Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983 41st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989 48th WMA General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000 53rd WMA General Assembly, Washington DC, USA, October 2002 (Note of Clarification added) 55th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 2004 (Note of Clarification added) 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul, Republic of Korea, October 2008 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013 Preamble 1. The World Medical Association (WMA) has developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including research on identifiable human material and data. The Declaration is intended to be read as a whole and each of its constituent paragraphs should be applied with consideration of all other relevant paragraphs. 2. Consistent with the mandate of the WMA, the Declaration is addressed primarily to physicians. The WMA encourages others who are involved in medical research involving human subjects to adopt these principles. General Principles 3. The Declaration of Geneva of the WMA binds the physician with the words, “The health of my patient will be my first consideration,” and the International Code of 2 http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/ Accessed July 22, 2014 “The health of my patient will be my first consideration,” and the International Code of Medical Ethics declares that, “A physician shall act in the patient's best interest when providing medical care.” 4. It is the duty of the physician to promote and safeguard the health, well-being and rights of patients, including those who are involved in medical research. The physician's knowledge and conscience are dedicated to the fulfilment of this duty. 5. Medical progress is based on research that ultimately must include studies involving human subjects. 6. The primary purpose of medical research involving human subjects is to understand the causes, development and effects of diseases and improve preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions (methods, procedures and treatments). Even the best proven interventions must be evaluated continually through research for their safety, effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility and quality. 7. Medical research is subject to ethical standards that promote and ensure respect for all human subjects and protect their health and rights. 8. While the primary purpose of medical research is to generate new knowledge, this goal can never take precedence over the rights
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Review of Scientific Self-Experimentation: Ethics History, Regulation, Scenarios, and Views Among Ethics Committees and Prominent Scientists
    Rejuvenation Research Page 1 of 41 © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/rej.2018.2059 1 Review of Scientific Self-experimentation: ethics history, regulation, scenarios, and views among ethics committees and prominent scientists. Brian Hanley, Butterfly Sciences, POBox 2363, Davis, CA 95616, USA. [email protected] William Bains, Rufus Scientific Ltd. 37 The Moor, Melbourn, Royston, Hertsfordshire, SG8 nt scientists. (DOI: 10.1089/rej.2018.2059) 10.1089/rej.2018.2059) scientists. nt (DOI: 6ED, UK. [email protected] nal published version may fromdiffer this proof. George Church, Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Word count: 5,969 Address for correspondence and reprints: [email protected] Keywords: ethics, research history, human research, medical ethics; self-experimentation, n-of-1 Abbreviated title: Review of Scientific Self-experimentation Rejuvenation Research lation, scenarios, and views among ethics committees and promine Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA from www.liebertpub.com at 06/25/18. For personal use only. Review of Scientific Self-experimentation: regu ethics history, This paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted publication,for but has yet to copyediting undergo correction. and proof The fi Page 2 of 41 2 Abstract We examine self-experimentation ethics history and practice, related law, use scenarios in universities and industry, and attitudes. We show through analysis of the historical development of medical ethics and regulation, from Hippocrates through Good Clinical Practice that there are no ethical barriers to self-experimentation. When the self- experimenter is a true investigator, there is no other party to be protected from unethical behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Non-Consensual Human Experimentation During the War on Terror
    ACEVES_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 11/26/2018 9:05 AM INTERROGATION OR EXPERIMENTATION? ASSESSING NON-CONSENSUAL HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION DURING THE WAR ON TERROR WILLIAM J. ACEVES* The prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation has long been considered sacrosanct. It traces its legal roots to the Nuremberg trials although the ethical foundations dig much deeper. It prohibits all forms of medical and scientific experimentation on non-consenting individuals. The prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation is now well established in both national and international law. Despite its status as a fundamental and non-derogable norm, the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation was called into question during the War on Terror by the CIA’s treatment of “high-value detainees.” Seeking to acquire actionable intelligence, the CIA tested the “theory of learned helplessness” on these detainees by subjecting them to a series of enhanced interrogation techniques. This Article revisits the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation to determine whether the CIA’s treatment of detainees violated international law. It examines the historical record that gave rise to the prohibition and its eventual codification in international law. It then considers the application of this norm to the CIA’s treatment of high-value detainees by examining Salim v. Mitchell, a lawsuit brought by detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. This Article concludes that the CIA breached the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation when it conducted systematic studies on these detainees to validate the theory of learned helplessness. Copyright © 2018 William J. Aceves *Dean Steven R. Smith Professor of Law at California Western School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Informed Consent and Refusal
    CHAPTER 3 Informed Consent and Refusal Evolution of the doctrine of informed consent Elements of informed consent and refusal The nature of informed consent Exceptions to the consent requirement Mrs. Stack is a 67- year- old woman admitted with rectal bleeding, chronic renal in- sufficiency, diabetes, and blindness. On admission, she was alert and capacitated. Two weeks later, she suffered a cardiopulmonary arrest, was resuscitated and intu- bated, and was transferred to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) in an unrespon- sive and unstable state. Consent for emergency dialysis was obtained from her son, who is also her health care agent. Dialysis was repeated two days later. During the past several years, Mrs. Stack has consistently stated to her family and her primary care doctor that she would never want to be on chronic dialysis and she has refused it numerous times when it was recommended. The physician, who has known and treated Mrs. Stack for many years, also treated her daughter who had been on chronic dialysis for some time and had died after suffering a heart attack. According to the physician and the patient’s family, Mrs. Stack’s refusal of dialysis has been based on her conviction that her daughter died as a result of the dialysis treatments. Mrs. Stack’s mental status has cleared considerably and, despite the ventilator, she is able to communicate nonverbally. Although she appears to understand the benefits of dialysis and the consequences of refusing it, including deterioration and eventual death, she has consistently and vehemently refused further treatments. Her capacity to make this decision is not now in question.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting the Rights of Patients, Nurses, and Others Participating in Research
    1.5 ANCC CONTACT HOURS Protecting the rights of patients, nurses, and others participating in research BY JOANN MICK, PhD, RN, NEA-BC Abstract: Clinical nurses are in a unique CLINICAL NURSES are in a unique position to support research that studies position to support research on the the effects of interventions, symptom effects of nursing interventions, management, education, and treatment plan symptom management, education, adherence in their patients. Nurses may also and treatment plan adherence in participate in research studies that aim to their patients. Nurses may also par- advance professional nursing practice. Using ticipate in research studies that aim a quiz format, this article addresses clinical nurses’ role in research, the history of federal to advance professional nursing regulation of research, basic human rights practice. and potential violations during the conduct A fundamental principle of nurs- of research, and specific nursing actions ing practice is respect for the inher- required when research is conducted in the ent dignity, worth, unique attributes, practice setting. and human rights of all individuals.1 Nurses who understand legal and Keywords: Belmont Report, Common Rule, ethical protections for human sub- Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical jects can contribute to research by Practice guidelines, human rights, human serving as advocates for their patients subjects protection, Kefauver-Harris and helping to ensure that studies Amendments, Nuremberg Code, thalidomide, Tuskegee study, Willowbrook are conducted in an ethical, legal, State School study and scientifically valid manner. ISTOCK Test your knowledge of the clini- / cal nurse’s role in research by taking ASISEEIT 26 l Nursing2019 l Volume 49, Number 7 www.Nursing2019.com Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics for Researchers
    Ethics for researchers Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7 Research and Innovation EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate B – European Research Area Unit B.6 – Ethics and gender Contact: Isidoros Karatzas European Commission B-1049 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] EUROPEAN COMMISSION Ethics for researchers Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7 Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2013 Science in society /Capacities FP7 EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013 ISBN 978-92-79-28854-8 doi 10.2777/7491 © European Union, 2013 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Cover Image © Sergey Nivens, #49108932, 2013. Source: Fotolia.com. Table of Contents Introduction .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Phrecord Summer 2017
    Physicians for Human Rights PHRecord Summer 2017 You Helped Us Tell the Truth about What Killed the People of Khan Sheikhoun When the bombs descended upon the victims, many of them children. “It looked chemical attack occur. We know that PHR’s Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun in the like people were struggling against death. deep bench and known voice will have an early hours of April 4, Physicians for They were resisting death.” impact – that by exposing these war crimes, Human Rights’ Syria team sprang into by calling out the perpetrators, and by action. As hundreds of Syrian men, PHR’s medical experts analyzed first-hand drawing the world’s attention when human women, and children were overwhelmed reports from medical personnel on the rights are so cruelly violated, we can help by an apparent chemical weapons attack ground and video and photographic deter abuses and ensure justice in the future. and hospitals were overrun with the dying, documentation of victims. Within hours, Thank you for making that possible. PHR’s researchers quickly reached out PHR was able to state that the attack had to our network of health and emergency all the hallmarks of an assault with a nerve workers across Idlib Governorate to try to agent – and we were cited again and again understand what was happening. in the global media. Bashar, a first responder with the Syrian Your backing has enabled PHR to develop Civil Defense – the White Helmets – told a deep expertise in chemical weapons, PHR researcher Racha Mouawieh that the supported our extensive documentation attack was unlike anything he had ever of attacks on health care, and nurtured our encountered.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissemination of Vaccine Misinformation on Twitter and Its Countermeasures
    Dissertation Dissemination of Vaccine Misinformation on Twitter and Its Countermeasures Christine Chen This document was submitted as a dissertation in March 2021 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty committee that supervised and approved the dissertation consisted of Luke Matthews (Chair), Sarah Nowak and Jeremy Miles. The external reader was Jennifer Golbeck. This dissertation was generously supported by the Anne and James Rothenberg Dissertation Award. PARDEE RAND GRADUATE SCHOOL For more information on this publication, visit http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSDA1332-1.html Published 2021 by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. is a registered trademarK Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademarK(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is reQuired from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help maKe communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND MaKe a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Abstract Outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases have continued to affect many parts of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuremberg Code: Why It’S Important
    UC DAVIS OFFICE OF RESEARCH Nuremberg Code: Why it’s Important Miles McFann IRB Administration Outreach and Training Nuremberg Trial 1946 -1947: “Doctors’ Trial” 23 defendants • 22 men • 1 woman 16 convictions • 9 prison sentences • 7 death sentences War Crimes: • Performing medical experimentation without subjects consent • Experimentation led to permanent disfigurement, disability, and/or death • Experimentation conducted on vulnerable populations 2 Nuremberg Trial (cont.) The Hippocratic Oath on Trial? 3 Nuremberg Code 1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. • Ethical Principal: Respect for Persons 2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature. • Ethical Principal: Beneficence 3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. • Ethical Principal: Beneficence 4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. • Ethical Principal: Beneficence 4 Nuremberg Code 5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects. • Ethical Principal: Beneficence, Justice 6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment. • Ethical Principal: Beneficence 7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
    [Show full text]
  • When Human Experimentation Is Criminal L
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 99 Article 3 Issue 1 Fall Fall 2008 When Human Experimentation is Criminal L. Song Richardson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation L. Song Richardson, When Human Experimentation is Criminal, 99 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 89 (2008-2009) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/09/9901-0089 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 99, No. I Copyright 0 2009 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. WHEN HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION IS CRIMINAL L. SONG RICHARDSON* Medical researchers engaged in human experimentation commit criminal acts seemingly without consequence. Whereas other actors who violate bodily integrity and autonomy are routinely penalized with convictions for assault, fraud, and homicide, researchers escape criminal punishment. This Article begins to scrutinize this undercriminalization phenomenon and provides a framework for understandingwhy researchers are not prosecuted for their crimes. It argues that their exalted social status, combined with the perceived social benefit of their research, immunizes them from use of the criminal sanction. Whether these constitute sufficient grounds to give researchers a pass from punishment is a significant question because the state's failure to act creates expressive harms. It displays attitudes towards victims and perpetrators that negatively affect the values of autonomy and dignity in medical research.
    [Show full text]
  • (IRBS) and the Globalization of Clinical Research: Can Ethical Oversight of Human Subjects Research Be Standardized?
    Washington University Global Studies Law Review Volume 15 Issue 2 2016 Research Ethics Committees (RECS)/Institutional Review Boards (IRBS) and the Globalization of Clinical Research: Can Ethical Oversight of Human Subjects Research be Standardized? Andrea S. Nichols Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies Part of the Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Structural Biology Commons, Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Laboratory and Basic Science Research Commons, Medical Jurisprudence Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrea S. Nichols, Research Ethics Committees (RECS)/Institutional Review Boards (IRBS) and the Globalization of Clinical Research: Can Ethical Oversight of Human Subjects Research be Standardized?, 15 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 351 (2016), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol15/iss2/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Global Studies Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES (RECS)/INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBS) AND THE GLOBALIZATION OF CLINICAL RESEARCH: CAN ETHICAL OVERSIGHT OF HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH BE STANDARDIZED? INTRODUCTION Current United States’ policy requires federally funded research studies involving human subjects to be approved by an interdisciplinary committee called an institutional review board (IRB).1 IRBs exist to protect the safety and welfare of human subjects participating in research studies. Although oversight of human subjects research and, consequently, IRBs, is governed by federal regulations, the operation of IRBs remain largely mysterious to those other than IRB members themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Preface
    NPR 7100.1B -- TOC Page 1 of 12 | NODIS Library | Program Formulation(7000s) | Search | NASA NPR 7100.1B Effective Date: February 15, Procedural 2019 Expiration Date: February 15, Requirements 2024 COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY FOR NASA EMPLOYEES Protection of Human Research Subjects Responsible Office: Office of the Chief Health & Medical Officer SPECIAL ATTENTION: ONLY USE NID 7100.133, Protection of Human Research Subjects. Table of Contents Preface P.1 Purpose P.2 Applicability P.3 Authority P.4 Applicable Documents and Forms P.5 Measurement/Verification P.6 Cancellation Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Human Subject Research at NASA 1.2 Common Rule Implementation Chapter 2. Criteria for NASA Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval 2.1 Criteria for all Research 2.2 Additional Criteria for Human Research Genetic Testing Chapter 3. NASA Specific Requirements 3.1 Research Modifications This document does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as NPR 7100.1B -- TOC incorporated into a contract. This document is uncontrolled when printed. Check Page 1 of 12 the NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS) Library to verify that this is the correct version before use: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov. NPR 7100.1B -- TOC Page 2 of 12 3.1 Research Modifications 3.2 Medical Data 3.3 Withdrawal from Research 3.4 Adverse Events 3.5 Sanctions and Disciplinary Action Appendix A. Definitions Appendix B. Acronyms Appendix C. References This document does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as NPR 7100.1B -- TOC incorporated into a contract. This document is uncontrolled when printed.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Human Research Participants NIH Office of Extramural Research Introduction
    Protecting Human Research Participants NIH Office of Extramural Research Introduction Research with human subjects can occasionally result in a dilemma for investigators. When the goals of the research are designed to make major contributions to a field, such as improving the understanding of a disease process or determining the efficacy of an intervention, investigators may perceive the outcomes of their studies to be more important than providing protections for individual participants in the research. Although it is understandable to focus on goals, our society values the rights and welfare of individuals. It is not considered ethical behavior to use individuals solely as means to an end. The importance of demonstrating respect for research participants is reflected in the principles used to define ethical research and the regulations, policies, and guidance that describe the implementation of those principles. Who? This course is intended for use by individuals involved in the design and/or conduct of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded human subjects research. What? This course is designed to prepare investigators involved in the design and/or conduct of research involving human subjects to understand their obligations to protect the rights and welfare of subjects in research. The course material presents basic concepts, principles, and issues related to the protection of research participants. Why? As a part of NIH's commitment to the protection of human subjects and its response to Federal mandates for increased emphasis on protection for human subjects in research, the NIH Office of Extramural Research released a policy on Required Education in the Protection of Human Research Participants in June 2000.
    [Show full text]