DOCSLIB.ORG

The Guide to Human Research Activities 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Guide to Human Research Activities 1 The Guide to Human Research Activities 1 The Guide to Human Research Activities Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Contributors: Office for Human Research Studies Office of Data Quality Clinical Trials Research Informatics Office Research Pharmacy Research Nursing Biostatistics Core Biosafety Officers Office of Faculty Activities Version: March 2017 The Guide to Human Research Activities 2 CONTENTS I. PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS II. DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS III. INTRODUCTION IV. SECTIONS 1: Clinical Trials and Sponsorship 2: Offices and Staffing Central to the Clinical Trials Process 2.1 Office for Human Research Studies (OHRS) 2.2 The Office of Data Quality (ODQ) 2.3 The Clinical Trials Research Informatics Office (CTRIO) 2.4 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) Clinical Trials Office (CTO) 2.5 Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Cancer Center Protocol Office (CCPO) 2.6 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) Cancer Clinical Trials Office (CCTO) 2.7 Clinical Investigations Leadership Committee (CLC) 2.8 Clinical Trials Operations Committee (CLINOPS) 2.9 Institutional Review Board (IRB) 2.10 Scientific Review Committee (SRC) and Scientific Progress Review 3: The Study Team 3.1 Overall Principal Investigator (Overall PI) 3.2 Site Principal Investigator (Site PI) 3.3 Collaborating Investigators (Co-investigators) 3.4 Biostatistician 3.5 Research Nurse 3.6 Study Coordinator 3.7 ODQ Data Analyst 4: Investigator and Study Staff Complaints and Suggestions 5: DF/HCC Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) 6: Research Listserv and DF/HCC Membership 6.1 Subscribe to the Research Listserv 6.2 DF/HCC Membership and DF/HCC Website Access 7: Required Human Subjects Training 7.1 The CITI Program 7.2 Courses Version: March 2017 The Guide to Human Research Activities 3 7.3 Certification 7.4 DF/HCC Training List 7.5 Continuing Human Subjects Protection Education 8: Federal Guidelines for Research Involving Human Subjects 9: Degree of Risk 9.1 Minimal Risk 9.2 Greater than Minimal Risk 10: Research Methods for Drug Studies 10.1 The Drug Development Process 10.2 Types of Trials 10.2.1 Pre-Clinical 10.2.2 Phase I 10.2.3 Phase II 10.2.4 Phase III 10.2.5 Phase IV 10.2.6 Multi-Modality Trials 11: Expanded Access to Investigational Treatment 11.1 Emergency Use 11.2 Treatment IND (Single Patient IND) 12: Tissue/Data Collection and Record Review 12.1 Banking Specimens and/or Data for Future Research 12.2 Access to Banked Tissue/Data by Other Investigators 12.3 Research Involving Previously Banked Tissue 12.4 Research Involving Record Reviews 13: Medical Devices 13.1 Definition 13.2 Ordering 13.3 Storage 13.4 Authorization 13.5 Dispensing 13.6 Destroying 14: Behavioral/Social Science Research 15: Vulnerable Populations 15.1 Inclusion of Children as Participants in Research 15.2 Pregnant Women and Fetuses in Research 15.3 Cognitively Impaired Persons Involved in Clinical research 15.4 Research Involving Prisoners Version: March 2017 The Guide to Human Research Activities 4 16: Recruiting Trials Participants 16.1 Private Medical Information 16.2 Referring Physicians 16.3 Advertisements 16.4 Recruitment Letters 16.5 Scripts 16.6 Unacceptable Language and Suggested Alternatives 17: Pre-screening Potential Trial Participants 17.1 Appropriate Information to Gather 17.2 Pre-screening Procedures 18: Protocol Design 18.1 The Protocol Document 18.2 Protocol Sections 19: Informed Consent 19.1 Informed Consent Document 19.2 Standardized Consent Form Template 19.3 Incentives and Remuneration for Study Subject Participation 19.4 Assent and Children in Research 19.5 IRB Waiver of Informed Consent 19.6 IRB Waiver of Documentation of Informed Consent 19.7 Guidelines for Obtaining Consent 19.8 DFCI IRB Policy and Guidance on the Consent Process 20: Protocol Submission, Review and Activation 20.1 The Review Process 20.2 Submitting a Trial for Review 20.3 Basic Elements of an IRB Submission 20.4 Other Documents that May Be Required 20.5 The Review Committees 20.6 Description of Protocol Reviewers 20.7 Review and Approval by Other DF/HCC Departments/Committees 20.8 Notification of Board Actions 20.9 Review Outcomes 20.10 Response to Committee Requests 20.11 Claim of Exemption 20.12 New Submission Flow Chart 20.13 Protocol Activation and Distribution 21: Continuing Review Version: March 2017 The Guide to Human Research Activities 5 22: Changes to Previously Approved Research (Amendments) 22.1 Overview 22.2 Types of Amendment Submissions 22.3 Amendment Submission Requirements 23: Reports of Non-Compliance (Deviations, Violations, Exceptions and Other Events) 23.1 Overview 23.2 Major Deviations / Violations / Exceptions 23.3 Minor Deviations / Violations 23.4 Other Events 24: Unanticipated Problems Involving Risks to Participants or Others 25: Adverse Event (AE) Reporting Policy 25.1 Definitions 25.2 Adverse Event Grading System 25.3 Attribution 25.4 DFCI IRB Requirements 25.5 AE Reporting Form 25.7 CTEP-AERS 25.8 AE Follow-up Reports 25.9 Gene Transfer Reporting Requirements 25.10 PI-initiated/IND Holder Reporting Requirements 25.11 PI-initiated/Sponsor Holds IND Reporting Requirements 25.12 Industry-sponsored (Investigational) Reporting Requirements 25.13 Industry-sponsored (Commercial) Reporting Requirements 26: Privacy and Confidentiality 26.1 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 26.2 What Constitutes PHI? 26.3 Minimum Necessary Standard for Research Activities 26.4 De-identified Information for HIPAA Privacy Rule 26.5 The Limited Data Set Option 26.6 Data Use Agreement Requirements 26.7 Accounting for Disclosures 26.8 Research on Deceased Persons 26.9 Waiver of Authorization for Research 27: Department of Biostatistical Science 27.1 Biostatistical Support for the Protocol Development Process 27.2 Biostatistical Support for Forms Development 27.3 Biostatistical Support for Data Collection and Storage 27.4 Biostatistical Support during Protocol Activation 27.5 Role of Biostatistics in Monitoring Active Trials Version: March 2017 The Guide to Human Research Activities 6 27.6 Biostatistics Involvement in Protocol Addenda 27.7 Analyses/Reports on DF/HCC Trials 28: Office of Data Quality (ODQ) 28.1 Introduction and Purpose 28.2 Mission 28.3 Functions of the ODQ 28.4 Participant Enrollment in Clinical Trials 28.5 Randomization Process 28.6 Phase I Dose-escalation Trials 28.7 Single Patient IND 28.8 Non-protocol Standard Treatment Registration 28.9 DF/PCC Network Affiliate Registration 28.10 Industry-led and Cooperative-group Registration 28.11 Non-patient Volunteer Registration 28.12 Electronic Confirmation of Registration 28.13 After-hours Registration 28.14 Removing a Participant from a Research Study 28.15 Protocol Closure Notification 28.16 Protocol Completion/Termination Notification 28.17 Reports Available from the Clinical Trials Research Informatics Office 28.18 Protocol Accrual Monitoring 28.19 Case Report Form (CRF) Design 28.20 Documentation and Storage of Data 28.21 Accrual-monitoring Program 28.22 Internal Auditing 28.23 DF/HCC Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) 28.24 DF/HCC Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) 29: Education 29.1 Programs for Clinical Investigators Study Team Members 29.2 Programs for Study Team Members 29.3 Professional Certification of Study Team Members 29.4 eLearning Center 29.5 In-Services 30: NCI Investigator Registration and Renewal 31: Protocol Registration Requirements 31.1 ClinicalTrials.gov 31.2 Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP) 32: Principal Investigators (PIs) 32.1 General Responsibilities of the PI Version: March 2017 The Guide to Human Research Activities 7 32.2 Financial Disclosure by Clinical Investigators 32.3 Conflict of Interest Policy 33: Study Coordinators 33.1 Roles and Responsibilities 33.2 Protocol Management 33.3 Data Management 33.4 Drug Accountability 33.5 Regulatory Submissions 33.6 The Regulatory Binder 33.7 Research Sampling 33.8 Monitoring and Audit Preparation 33.9 Checklist for Monitoring and Auditing Visits 34: Investigator-held INDs 34.1 IND Overview 34.2 General Principles of the IND Submission 34.3 IND Content and Format 34.4 Submission of the IND Application to the FDA 34.5 IND Application Approval Process 34.6 IND Post-Approval 34.7 IND Protocol Amendments 34.8 IND Safety Reports for Investigator-held INDs 34.9 IND Annual Reports 34.10 Final Study Reports 34.11 Withdrawal of an IND Application 34.12 General Responsibilities of the Investigator-Sponsor 34.13 Selecting Participating Investigators and Monitors 34.14 Informing Participating Investigators of New Observations 34.15 Reviewing Ongoing Investigations 34.16 Record Keeping and Record Retention 34.17 Inspection of Records and Reports 34.18 Disposition of Unused Investigational Drug 34.19 General Responsibilities of Participating Investigators 34.20 Control of the Investigational Drug 34.21 Participating Investigator Record Keeping and Record Retention 34.22 Participating Investigator Reports 35: Conducting PI-initiated Multi-center Trials at DF/HCC 35.1 Purpose and Function of a Lead Site 35.2 Overall PI Responsibilities 35.3 Lead Site Responsibilities 35.4 Participating Site PI Responsibilities 35.5 Regulatory Binder Version: March 2017 The Guide to Human Research Activities 8 35.6 Staff Training 35.7 Central Participant Registration 35.8 Adverse Event Reporting 35.9 Data Collection 35.10 Quality Assurance 35.11 Site Communication 35.12 Drug Ordering 35.13 Inter-institutional Agreement/Contract 35.14 Multi-center Coordinating Committee 36: Gene Transfer Research (Recombinant DNA) 37: Evaluation of Outreach Activities and Catchment Area V. Appendix R.1 Code of Federal Regulations R.2 Good Clinical Practice Guidelines R.3 Medical Terminology, Dictionaries and Other Resources R.4 Ethics References R.5 External Web Sites R.6 DF/HCC Web Sites R.7 DF/HCC Participating Institutions R.8 Regulatory Documents for Sponsors R.9 DF/HCC SOPS for Human Subject Research R.10 Office for Human Research Studies Information Sheets R.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mary Klyap, Ph.D. Coordinator, Shared Accountability Howard County Public School System 410-313-6978 "Together, We Can"
    From: Mary R. Levinsohn-Klyap To: Eva Yiu Subject: FW: IRB Proposal for Dissertation Date: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:17:22 PM Attachments: IRB Synopsis - Donyall Dickey .doc Interview Questions for Disseratation - Edited.doc Dissertation Defend Date May 2015 7-27-14 .doc Thank you! Mary Klyap, Ph.D. Coordinator, Shared Accountability Howard County Public School System 410-313-6978 "Together, we can" From: Donyall D. Dickey [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:59 AM To: Mary R. Levinsohn-Klyap Subject: IRB Proposal for Dissertation Mary, As we discussed, I am seeking permission to interview 8 African American males who despite being at risk for failure have succeeded/are succeeding academically as measured by performance on the Maryland School Assessment. I would only need to interview each boy (preferably former students of mine from Murray Hill Middle School. The interviews would be 30-45 minutes per student and could be done during or after school hours. The name of the school, the district, and the students will remain anonymous (I am required to keep it anonymous). Each participant/family will be compensated $200 for their participation in the form of an American Express Gift Card. Thank you for your consideration. My dissertation committee required me to reshape my study and I am so ready to walk across the state this summer. I have attached my IRB Proposal, APPROVED Interview Protocol and APPROVED Dissertation Proposal. Donyall (267) 331-6664 (F) www.educationalepiphany.com GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF HUMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD [email protected] Phone: 202.994.2715 FAX: 202.994.0247 HUMANRESEARCH.GWU.EDU HUMAN RESEARCH STUDY SYNOPSIS (VERSION DATE:11/26/2014) TITLE: The African American Middle School Male Acheivement Gap and Peformance on State Assessments SPONSOR (FOR EXTERNAL FUNDING ONLY): IRB # (if already assigned, otherwise leave blank--will be assigned upon submission): STUDENT-LED PROJECT: YES NO PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (MUST BE GWU FACULTY) LAST NAME:Tekleselassie FIRST NAME:Abebayehu DEGREE: Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Guideline for Determining Human Subject Research
    General Pediatrics GUIDELINE FOR DETERMINING HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH According to OHSP Policy 301 Scope and Authority of the RSRB, the RSRB has the authority to determine whether a project meets the criteria for human subject research. When the RSRB office is consulted to discuss the proposed activity, or when a project is submitted for RSRB review, RSRB staff make the determination whether HHS or FDA criteria for review apply. Investigators, study teams and RSRB staff will consider the definitions provided and then follow the procedures below for confirming this determination. The Human Subjects Research Determination Form (Appendix 1) may be used as a tool, as well as the HHS Human Subject Regulations Decision Charts. Definitions Human subject: a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research (1) obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens, OR (2) obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens. a. Living Individual means specimens/data/information collected from living subjects. Cadavers, autopsy specimens or specimens/information from subjects now deceased does not meet the definition of human subject. b. Intervention includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered (e.g., venipuncture) and manipulations of the subject or the subject's environment that are performed for research purposes. c. Interaction
    [Show full text]
  • Investigator Manual for Human Subjects Research
    The University of Texas at El Paso Institutional Review Board (IRB) Investigator Manual Human Research Oversight and Compliance Office A division of The Office of Research and Sponsored Projects 1 Revised January 2019 Table of Contents Purpose of this manual .................................................................................................... 3 Human Subjects Research: A Definition ......................................................................... 3 The Human Research Oversight & Compliance Program .............................................. 3 The Institutional Review Board at UTEP (IRB) ................................................................ 4 Who should submit to the UTEP IRB (who can be a PI) ................................................. 6 Required Training to Conduct Human Subject Research ............................................... 6 Principal Investigator Responsibilities ............................................................................. 7 Financial Interest Disclosure ........................................................................................... 8 Approvals Needed before Submission ............................................................................ 8 Internationally Conducted Research Projects ................................................................. 8 Subject Compensation ................................................................................................. 10 Appropriate Recruitment Methods ................................................................................
    [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]
  • Is This Human Subjects Research? Do I Need Irb Review?
    IS THIS HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH? DO I NEED IRB REVIEW? A Guide for Researchers baylor.edu/research This booklet, prepared by the Office of the Vice Provost for Research—Research Compliance, provides guidance to Baylor University investigators who may be uncertain if their study meets the definitions of human subjects research stated in the federal regulations (45 CFR 46.102). Is This Human Subjects Research? Do I Need IRB Review? offers researchers an explanation of the definitions as well as examples of studies that do or do not qualify as human subjects research. For further information, please refer to the Resources section on page 9 of this booklet. Credit is given to the University of Southern California Office for the Protection of Research Subjects (OPRS) for the concept and as a primary source of information. Office of the Vice Provost for Research TABLE OF CONTENTS Human subjects research ....................................................4 How do I identify human subjects research studies? ..............................5 Studies that are NOT human subjects research...................................6 Non-human subjects research examples........................................7 Human subjects research examples ...........................................8 Is an exempt determination the same thing as a non-human subjects research determination? .....................................................8 Resources ................................................................9 Contact us ...............................................................10 baylor.edu/research HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH Research projects involving human subjects require review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). An IRB is an ethics committee of scientists and non-scientists who assure that the rights and welfare of human subjects are adequately protected in research. The BU IRB is responsible for reviewing and overseeing human subjects research conducted by BU faculty, staff and students.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Subjects Research Guidance12 21 10.Indd
    EPA 600/R-10/175 | June 2009 | www.epa.gov/ord Guidance for Human Subjects Research in the National Exposure Research Laboratory PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID EPA PERMIT NO.G-35 Offi ce of Research and Development (8101R) Washington, DC 20460 Offi cial Business Penalty for Private Use $300 OfOffificece ofof Research and Development National Exposure Research LaboratoryLaboratory Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains a minimum of 50% postconsumer fi ber content processed chlorine free GUIDANCE FOR HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH IN THE NATIONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY NATIONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY First Edition June 2009 Director, ORD Human Research Protocol Office (919)966-6217 DISCLAIMER This document has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Disclaimer .......................................................................................................................... ii 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 HRPO .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Historical Overview of Policies Regulating Human Subjects Research
    [Show full text]
  • Facebook's Emotional Contagion Experiment As a Challenge
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Cogitatio Press (E-Journals) Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183-2439) 2016, Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages 75-85 doi: 10.17645/mac.v4i4.579 Article Facebook’s Emotional Contagion Experiment as a Challenge to Research Ethics Jukka Jouhki 1,*, Epp Lauk 2, Maija Penttinen 1, Niina Sormanen 2 and Turo Uskali 2 1 Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland; E-Mails: [email protected] (J.J.), [email protected] (M.P.) 2 Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland; E-Mails: [email protected] (E.L.), [email protected] (N.S.), [email protected] (T.U.) * Corresponding author Submitted: 31 January 2016 | Accepted: 12 April 2016 | Published: 10 October 2016 Abstract This article analyzes the ethical discussion focusing on the Facebook emotional contagion experiment published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014. The massive-scale experiment manipulated the News Feeds of a large amount of Facebook users and was successful in proving that emotional contagion happens also in online environments. However, the experiment caused ethical concerns within and outside academia mainly for two intertwined reasons, the first revolving around the idea of research as manipulation, and the second focusing on the problematic definition of informed consent. The article concurs with recent research that the era of social media and big data research are posing a significant challenge to research ethics, the practice and views of which are grounded in the pre social media era, and reflect the classical ethical stances of utilitarianism and deontology.
    [Show full text]
  • AUDIT COMMITTEE September 13Th, 2017 MEETING AGENDA 1:00 P.M
    AUDIT COMMITTEE September 13th, 2017 MEETING AGENDA 1:00 P.M. 125 Worth Street, Rm. 532 5th Floor Board Room CALL TO ORDER Adoption of Minutes June 13, 2017 Ms. Emily A. Youssouf INFORMATION ITEMS Audits Update Mr. Chris A. Telano Compliance Update Mr. Wayne McNulty EXECUTIVE SESSION OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT New York City Health + Hospitals MINUTES AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: June 13, 2017 TIME: 1:00 PM COMMITTEE MEMBERS Emily Youssouf, Chair Stanley Brezenoff Josephine Bolus, RN Mark Page Gordon Campbell STAFF ATTENDEES Salvatore J. Russo, General Counsel, Legal Affairs Colicia Hercules, Chief of Staff, Chairman’s Office Patricia Lockhart, Secretary to the Corporation, Chairman’s Office PV Anantharam, Senior Vice President/Corporate Chief Financial Officer Paul Albertson, Vice President, Supply Chain Jay Weinman, Corporate Comptroller James Linhart, Deputy Corporate Comptroller Wayne McNulty, Corporate Compliance Officer/Senior Assistant Vice President Elizabeth Guzman, Assistant Vice President, ERP Finance Nelson Conde, Senior Director, Affiliations L. R. Tulloch, Senior Director, Office of Facilities Development Paulene Lok, Senior Director, Finance Alice Berkowitz, Assistant Director, Finance Imah Jones, Senior Director, Research Administration Donald Ashkenase, Finance, Strategic Advisor Christopher A. Telano, Chief Internal Auditor/Senior Assistant Vice President Devon Wilson, Senior Director, Office of Internal Audits Delores, Rahman, Director, Office of Internal Audits Rosemarie Thomas, Assistant Director, Office
    [Show full text]
  • Judy Savageau on the IRB Process in Human Subject Research
    University of Massachusetts Medical School eScholarship@UMMS Center for Health Policy and Research (CHPR) Publications Commonwealth Medicine 2012-05-30 Judy Savageau on The IRB Process in Human Subject Research Judith A. Savageau University of Massachusetts Medical School Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Follow this and additional works at: https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/healthpolicy_pp Part of the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, and the Health Services Research Commons Repository Citation Savageau JA. (2012). Judy Savageau on The IRB Process in Human Subject Research. Center for Health Policy and Research (CHPR) Publications. Retrieved from https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/ healthpolicy_pp/152 This material is brought to you by eScholarship@UMMS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Center for Health Policy and Research (CHPR) Publications by an authorized administrator of eScholarship@UMMS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The IRB Process in Human Subject Research Hello! I’m Judy Savageau, faculty, researcher, and IRB representative for the University of Massachusetts Center for Health Policy and Research. I want to bring attention to the need for us to be mindful that our stakeholder groups are often ‘subjects’ in our evaluation research. Why are there ethical concerns? Like research, evaluation involves human subjects. Study participants, vital to our understanding and advancing knowledge related to particular issues and processes, may experience risks and inconveniences with no direct benefit. Most investigators conducting research (whether clinical, population-based, evaluation, educational, policy or the basic sciences) must have their studies approved by their Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB defines ‘research’ as ‘a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge’.
    [Show full text]
  • Characteristics of Human Subject Research Vs. Other Project Types
    COMPARISON: CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH VS. OTHER PROJECT TYPES Certain activities may have the characteristics of research and involve some level of interaction with people. However, IRB review is only required for projects that meet the federal definition of research involving human subjects. Please use the information in the table below to determine whether your project meets this federal definition. If the project has one or more of the characteristics in the first column, the project may require IRB review. If the project has none of the characteristics in the first column, please download, complete, and submit the initial sections of the NEW application and protocol form (see Step 3 under Preparing an Initial Submission) and a formal response will be issued for your records. HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH SCHOLARLY AND QUALITY PROGRAM EVALUATION STUDENT PROJECT JOURNALISTIC ACTIVITIES IMPROVEMENT OR ASSESSMENT INTENT 45CFR46.102(d): Research means a systematic This category of activities concerns Intent of project is to Intent of project is to evaluate Intent of project is to provide an investigation, including research development, testing certain activities in various fields improve a practice or a specific program, only to educational experience about and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to that focus directly on the specific process within a particular provide information for and the research process or methods. generalizable knowledge. individuals about whom institution or ensure it about that program. information are collected (e.g., oral conforms to expected Belmont Report: [T]he term ‘research’ designates an history, journalism, biography, norms. activity designed to test an hypothesis, permit literary criticism, legal research, conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to develop or and historical scholarship).
    [Show full text]
  • Research Involving Human Subjects
    Research Involving Human Subjects Category: Academic Affairs - Operational Responsible Department: Office of Research Services Responsible Officer: Director of Research Compliance Effective Date: 09/18/2018 Policy Summary This policy serves as a guide to the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects, including the use of private individually identifiable data by DePaul faculty, students, and staff when they conduct the research activity under their roles or duties at DePaul or engage themselves or DePaul in the conduct of the research. This policy arises from the university's obligation to comply with the federal regulations governing human subject research, and, accordingly, the authority to revise this policy lies with the Institutional Review Board, administered through the Office of Research Services. Scope This policy affects the following groups of the University: • Full-Time Staff • Part-Time Staff • Full-Time Faculty • Part-Time Faculty • Students The following individuals are required to be familiar with this policy: • Members of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) • Office of Research Services Staff • Faculty, staff, and students conducting human subject research Page 1 of 34 Policy A. Introduction The federal regulations define research as a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. Human subject is defined as a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains (1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or (2) identifiable private information. Intervention includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered (for example, venipuncture) and manipulations of the subject or the subject's environment that are performed for research purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Research and Survival in the Irb Iron Cage†
    Copyright 2007 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 101, No. 2 REGULATING CREATIVITY: RESEARCH AND † SURVIVAL IN THE IRB IRON CAGE Caroline H. Bledsoe,* Bruce Sherin,** Adam G. Galinsky,*** Nathalia M. Headley,**** Carol A. Heimer,***** Erik Kjeldgaard,****** James Lindgren,******* Jon D. Miller,******** Michael E. Roloff********* & David H. Uttal********** INTRODUCTION When universities receive federal funding to conduct research, they make a number of promises to the U. S. Government. They promise, of course, to carry out a plan of research, and they promise to do so in a fis- cally responsible manner. When the research involves human subjects, they also promise to ensure that the rights and welfare of human subjects who participate in this research are adequately protected through an Institutional † The authors are grateful to Gail Eby, Adam Galinski, Philip Hamburger, Rena Lederman, Alison Lewis, Mark Nichter, Helen Schwartzman, Rachel Scherrer, Richard Shweder, Arthur Stinchcombe, Matthew Vanek, and Ji-Yeon Yuh for central input into this paper. Many other colleagues and students at Northwestern and elsewhere have shared their own IRB memories and reflections. Special thanks go to leaders past and present in the Northwestern IRB administration—especially Don Workman, Lewis J. Smith, and Marcia Mahoney—for frank and generous discussion. Don Workman’s comments on an ear- lier draft were invaluable. Many of the historic details regarding the Northwestern IRB are products of our own collective memory, and conclusions we reach are our own. * Melville J. Herskovits Professor of African Studies, Northwestern University. B.A., University of Arizona; Ph.D., Stanford University.
    [Show full text]