Ethical and legal considerations in research

Free business l and legal considerations in conducting x28de 8 years, 7 months following is an extract from research methods in education - an introduction, eighth edition 2005 by william wiersma and stephen g. John 2/3/chers need access first to the research site and then to the individual participant. Whenever research is conducted in an educational setting, it is necessary to obtain permission from the site's "gatekeeper," who might be the principal, the superintendent, or a committee that is charged with this responsibility. The federal regulations require that univerisities and agencies engaging in research with human participants have an institutional review board (irb) for the review and approval of research proposals. This includes the research proposals of are required to review research proposals and certify that the proposed research will be conducted in accordance wtih the law and will protect the human subjects who are involved in the research. Typically, each institution has a standard form for irb review that is available from an office of research or equivalent. Criteria for irb approval of research projects can be summarised generally as:Projects should identify anticipated risks to subjects and be designed to minimize such risks. Is some controversy about the role and practice of irbs in practitioner research, such as action research, because practitioner research is usually an integral part of ordinary educational practice, and thus is not subject to irb common rule defines research as:A systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to contribute to generalizable definition of generalizable knowledge is left to the researcher or the irb, but practically all educational research falls within this definition of research. The definition of human subject is also broad: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 researcher is obligated to protect participants from risk. The national research act requires that research participants are informed about their role in the research and that they give their written consent for participation. Consent forms should not contain any exculpatory language that may cause subjects to waive, or appear to waive their legal rights. Consent must address the purposes and procedures of the research, and a description of any possible risks or negative consequences. The subject must be informed of the likely duration of the research and the necessary commitments of the participants. Confidentiality referes to the researcher not disclosing the identity of the participants or indicating from whom the data were obtained. Written consent must be obtained if it is necessary to have personal identification and the identification information must be destroyed following its use for seven guidelines given by bogdan and biklen (2003) for meeting the legal and ethical requirements for conducting educational research. These guidelines were developed for qualitative research, but they generally apply to all educational research sites where informants may feel coerced to participate in your your informants' is a difference in informants' time commitment to you when you do participant observation in public places, and when they do an interview with otherwise agreed to, the subjects' identities should be protected so that the information you collect does not embarrass or in other ways harm subjects with respect and seek their cooperation in the negotiating permission to do a study, you should make it clear to those with whom you negotiate what the terms of the agreement are, and you should abide by that the truth when you write up and report your is the link to ethics and code of l and legal considerations in conducting a link to a new images or files uploaded image from : to turn text into a link, highlight the text, then click on a page or file from the list so much for this john. I think stephen and george need to be careful because their research comes out under their university auspices. Jenny, you are right in that stephen and george have to abide to the protocols on research with their university of manitoba. Any formal research must be approved by the institutional review board under such reading george's email, i think he just wishes to alert us that any researches done within an institutional setting should be reviewed by the irb (especially if the research involves surveys or interviews). So, if our research is conducted within the auspices of our institution for an educational degree or award, we would need to submit it to the irb for i was a student in the msc (eng) course, i had to submit a research proposal for approval before conducting the research. I was allowed to use the unversity's letterhead to post formal letters on the research. The views expressed by individual respondents will be presented in my research project only in the form of statistical summary and your responses are completely anonymous". Need to be careful not to identify any people or quotes without their permission - that is absolutely essential to ensure compliance to the national research acts. And any data which are directly linked to an identifiable source (such as a recorded personal interview) might need to be handled with care, since anyone could record them if we broadcast such interview podcast on the must ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of respondents throughout the research, and must seek consent on any reference to publications and quotes if we are to publish our papers in , matthias, and roy. Think so far if we have an mutual understanding that we act in good faith (ethical manner at all times), have sought consent with respondents on the survey,and discuss before we disclose any identities in public, we have already committed ourselves in protecting the rights of ourselves and those involved in the research, and prevented and minimised the risks out of the researh. This documentation on ethical and legal consideration and discussion amongst us is sufficient to the test of any audits that i am aware of on review. On the other hand, if we want to target the pronounced blog fans or forum fans, the surveymonky url should not be public, and i don't know what that means for the ethical statements. Pmc5037952legal and ethical issues in researchcamille yip,1 nian-lin reena han,2 and ban leong sng1,31department of women's anaesthesia, kk women's and children's hospital, bukit timah, singapore2division of clinical support services, kk women's and children's hospital, bukit timah, singapore3anesthesiology and perioperative sciences academic clinical program, duke-nus medical school, singaporeaddress for correspondence: dr. License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical ctlegal and ethical issues form an important component of modern research, related to the subject and researcher. This article seeks to briefly review the various international guidelines and regulations that exist on issues related to informed consent, confidentiality, providing incentives and various forms of research misconduct. Relevant original publications (the declaration of helsinki, belmont report, council for international organisations of medical sciences/world health organisation international guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects, world association of medical editors recommendations on publication ethics policies, international committee of medical journal editors, cose white paper, international conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use-good clinical practice) form the literature that are relevant to the ethical and legal aspects of conducting research that researchers should abide by when conducting translational and clinical research. Hence, specific ethical advice should be sought at local ethics review words: confidentiality, ethics, informed consent, legal issues, plagiarism, professional misconductintroductionthe ethical and legal issues relating to the conduct of clinical research involving human participants had raised the concerns of policy makers, lawyers, scientists and clinicians for many years. The purpose of a clinical research is to systematically collect and analyse data from which conclusions are drawn, that may be generalisable, so as to improve the clinical practice and benefit patients in future. Therefore, it is important to be familiar with good clinical practice (gcp), an international quality standard that is provided by the international conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use (ich),[1] or the local version, gcp of the central drugs standard control organization (india's equivalent of us food and drug administration)[2] and local regulatory policy to ensure that the research is conducted both ethically and legally. In this article, we will briefly review the legal and ethical issues pertaining to recruitment of human subjects, basic principles of informed consent and precautions to be taken during data and clinical research publications. Some of the core principles of gcp in research include defining responsibilities of sponsors, investigators, consent process monitoring and auditing procedures and protection of human subjects. 3]issues related to the research participantsthe main role of human participants in research is to serve as sources of data. Researchers have a duty to ‘protect the life, health, dignity, integrity, right to self-determination, privacy and confidentiality of personal information of research subjects’.

Ethical and legal issues in research

4] the belmont report also provides an analytical framework for evaluating research using three ethical principles:[5]. For persons – the requirement to acknowledge autonomy and protect those with diminished autonomybeneficence – first do no harm, maximise possible benefits and minimise possible harmsjustice – on individual and societal atment of research subjects is considered research misconduct (no ethical review approval, failure to follow approved protocol, absent or inadequate informed consent, exposure of subjects to physical or psychological harm, exposure of subjects to harm due to unacceptable research practices or failure to maintain confidentiality). However, due to the research-centred, rather than patient-centred primary purpose, additional relevant information must be provided in clinical trials or research studies in informed consent form. There are also general principles regarding risk assessment, scientific requirements, research protocols and registration, function of ethics committees, use of placebo, post-trial provisions and research publication. 4]table 1essential components of an informed consentspecial populationsinformed consent may be sought from a legally authorised representative if a potential research subject is incapable of giving informed consent[4] (children, intellectual impairment). The involvement of such populations must fulfil the requirement that they stand to benefit from the research outcome. 4] the ‘legally authorised representative’ may be a spouse, close relative, parent, power of attorney or legally appointed guardian. The hierarchy of priority of the representative may be different between different countries and different regions within the same country; hence, local guidelines should be l case: emergency researchemergency research studies occur where potential subjects are incapacitated and unable to give informed consent (acute head trauma, cardiac arrest). If there is not enough time, an ‘exception to informed consent’ may allow the subject to be enrolled with prior approval of an ethical committee. 7] researchers must obtain deferred informed consent as soon as possible from the subject (when regains capacity), or their legally authorised representative, for continued participation. 10] the amount and nature of remuneration should be compared to norms, cultural traditions and are subjected to the ethical committee review. 7]issues related to the researcherlegal issues pertaining to regulatory bodiesvarious regulatory bodies have been constituted to uphold the safety of subjects involved in research. It is imperative to obtain approval from the appropriate regulatory authorities before proceeding to any research. The researchers are expected to be aware of these authorities and the list of various bodies pertinent to india are listed in the article “research methodology ii” of this ng bias, inappropriate research methodology, incorrect reporting and inappropriate use of informationgood, well-designed studies advance medical science development. Poorly conducted studies violate the principle of justice, as there are time and resources wastage for research sponsors, researchers and subjects, and undermine the societal trust on scientific enquiry. 11] the guidelines for gcp is an international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing, conducting, recording and reporting trials. 1]fraud in research and publicationde novo data invention (fabrication) and manipulation of data (falsification)[6] constitute serious scientific misconduct. 13] tools such as similarity check[14] are available to aid researchers detect similarities between manuscripts, and such checks should be done before submission. 16] this practice could artificially enlarge one's scientific work, distorting apparent productivity and may give an undue advantage when competing for research funding or career advancement. 11]salami publication slicing of data from a single research process into different pieces creating individual manuscripts from each piece to artificially increase the publication volume. 6]authorship and its various associationsthe icmje recommendation lists four criteria of authorship:Substantial contributions to the conception of design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the workdrafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual contentfinal approval of the version to be publishedagreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and s:article | pubreader | epub (beta) | printer friendly | and health research: ethical and legal issues of including women in clinical studies, volume r: 6 legal /10766 to get more information about this book, to buy it in print, or to download it as a free pdf. Women and health research: ethical and legal issues of including women in clinical studies, volume 1. Considerations governing research on human subjects issue both from federal and state laws and from the institutional framework of sponsor agencies and research organizations that interpret and implement these laws. At the federal level, congress has passed statutes and various federal agencies have promulgated regulations and guidelines to govern research on human subjects, including policies directly pertinent to the participation of women in clinical studies. The extent to which the individuals and organizations involved in the conduct of research must adhere to these policies depends on the type of policy: statutes and regulations must be followed by public and private entities, while guidelines are recommendations. Those involved in the conduct of human research also are governed by state constitutions, statutes, regulations, and liability decisions. From the possibility of injury to offspring resulting from women's participation in clinical drug utional -related research and development in the united states is supported by the federal government (predominantly through the national institutes of health [nih]), the pharmaceutical industry, and private foundations. This institutional structure can affect the conduct of research because it is the source not only of funding, but also of procedures for reviewing the ethics of scientific research-including whether a proposed plan for selecting research participants is just-and of the legal requirements applicable to , located within the public health service (phs) of the department of health and human services (dhhs), is the single largest supporter of biomedical and behavioral research and development (health r&d) in the world. Extramural programs support health r&d projects carried out by research institutions throughout the united states and in at least 80 nations worldwide. Intramural programs, operated by federal employees, conduct research on the nih campus in bethesda, maryland, and at a number of other locations throughout the country (maryland, north carolina, colorado, florida, and other states). Approximately 88 percent of the nih research budget is disbursed to nonfederal institutions through grants-in-aid, contracts, and cooperative agreements (nih, 1992). Applications recommended for funding are actually funded in any given fiscal addition to their responsibilities for assessing scientific merit, irgs also are asked to identify ethical concerns associated with proposed research in relation to the rights and welfare of human research subjects, care and use of laboratory animals, and scientific misconduct. Boards and councils also have authority to raise ethical concerns that place a bar to funding. Ethics concerns raised by irgs are reviewed and resolved by national advisory boards or ct proposals and cooperative agreements for biomedical and behavioral research are reviewed in a manner similar to that utilized to review grant applications. No contract or cooperative agreement can be finalized until and unless ethics concerns have been making awards, nih and other phs agencies operate under the general authority of the public health service act, which requires the secretary of dhhs to operate a wide variety of health-related regulatory, research, demonstration, and service programs. Responsibility for these programs is delegated by the secretary, or in some cases directly by the congress, to the agencies and program directors throughout tory responsibility for protecting the rights and welfare of human research subjects has been delegated to the office for protection from research risks (oprr). Those regulations require that, before awardee institutions are permitted to carry out research involving human subjects, they must provide adequate assurance to oprr that they will comply with the regulations. The primary requirement of the regulations is that before work is begun and at intervals of no more than one year during the conduct of research involving human subjects, each research project shall be reviewed and approved by an institutional review board (irb).

Are administrative bodies established to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research activities conducted under the auspices of their affiliated institutions. Each irb has authority to approve, require modifications in, or disapprove all research activities that fall within its fda, another phs agency, functions under the food, drug and cosmetic act (fdca). In those rare instances when the fda conducts clinical research, that research is subject to dhhs regulations. Institutions that conduct clinical studies funded by nih or another phs agency involving drugs, biologics, or medical devices are subject to all applicable policies and regulations of both nih and utions conducting research on drugs, biologics, and medical devices without any public funding, including research conducted by scientists in the employ of pharmaceutical companies and research conducted by academic scientists and others supported by the pharmaceutical industry or private foundations, are subject only to federal policies promulgated by fda. According to the pharmaceutical manufacturers association (pma), the pharmaceutical industry contributes just over half of total health research dollars-$10. Industry research is carried out by pharmaceutical companies without federal funding either onsite or at universities. Privately funded pharmaceutical research carried out in a university setting, however, may be subject to dhhs regulations, because individual institutional policies frequently require investigators to conform to dhhs policy, independent of the funding source of a particular study. The american lung association) underwrite a much smaller, but not insignificant, percentage of health research. Such privately funded, nonpharmaceutical research would technically not be subject to any federal policies, but again, if conducted at an institution that receives federal funds, it would likely be subject to dhhs ted citation:"6 legal considerations. These policies govern research funded, conducted, or otherwise regulated by the federal government, its agencies, and departments. Nih, department of veterans affairs, department of the army, private funding, and the like), type of research (e. We will begin with a discussion of the policies of or affecting dhhs-funded research, focusing particularly on nih and fda policies. Finally, where relevant, provisions applicable to fertile women will be contrasted with policies applicable to fertile al institutes of of this writing, nih policy on study population composition of intramural and extramural research is in transition. This provision of the law mandates the inclusion of women and racial and ethnic groups in nih intramural and extramural research. It is to be implemented in fiscal year 1995 through nih guidelines scheduled to be published in december 1993; draft versions of these guidelines were not available to the nih policy on study population composition currently in effect ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Larosa, deputy director of the nih office of research on women's health, personal communication, october 1993). The policy in effect as of this writing was introduced in 1990 and consists of five components:The august 1, 1990, nih policy memorandum on inclusion of women and minorities applicable to intramural research;. August 1990 policy notice entitled "nih/adamha policy concerning inclusion of women in study populations," applicable to extramural research;. September 1990 policy notice entitled "nih/adamha policy concerning inclusion of minorities in study populations," applicable to extramural research;. Explanatory memorandum entitled "nih instruction and information memorandum oer 90-5" describing the application of the two policy notices applicable to extramural research;. It is possible that the phs grant application will be modified as well, to accommodate the policy current nih policy, which became effective in february 1991 (referred to collectively here as the "1991 nih policy") will only be briefly described, while the new legislative mandate (referred to here as the "act") will be discussed in detail below, highlighting areas of known ing the issuance of the 1990 gao report, nih promulgated a strengthened policy to govern the awarding of federal research grants. The new policy applies to a wide variety of extramural clinical research projects, including:Human biomedical and behavioral studies of etiology, epidemiology, prevention (and preventive strategies), diagnosis, or treatment of diseases, disorders or conditions, including but not limited to clinical rd language articulating the extramural policy now appears in all requests for proposals (rfps) announced in the nih guide for grants and contracts:Suggested citation:"6 legal considerations. For grants and cooperative agreements that involve human subjects are required to include minorities and both genders in study populations so that the research findings can be of benefit to all persons at risk of the disease, disorder, or condition under applicant must describe the proposed study population composition and provide a "compelling" justification for gender or racial and ethnic group exclusion. The investigator must also address gender and racial and ethnic issues "in developing a research design and sample size appropriate for scientific objectives of the study. The explanatory memorandum to nih staff and peer advisory groups directs them to consider sufficient only "strong scientific or practical reasons" for the exclusion of women or racial and ethnic groups from clinical research. Some of the potentially "acceptable" justifications listed include: research on a "predominantly or exclusively a male condition'' (e. Prostate cancer); research that presents an "unacceptable risk for women of childbearing age"; certain pilot and feasibility studies in which "gender differences may not be germane"; research in an area that "has already been extensively studied in women"; and in certain instances, studies that would be "prohibitively expensive" (nih, 1990). A summary of study population composition during the first full year of the policy's implementation is expected to be issued by nih of the nih intramural research program is subject to a different, less restrictive policy that requires only that gender-based exclusions be indicated and a "clear rationale" be provided. It currently reads, in its entirety:The inclusion of women must be considered in the study populations for all clinical research efforts. If women are not to be included, a clear rationale should be provided for their ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Order to provide more precise information to the medical community, it is recommended that publications resulting from nih- or adamha-conducted research specify, in the abstract or summary, the gender(s) of the research subjects or patients [rall, 1990]. The act requires that women and ethnic and racial groups be included as subjects in each intramural and extramural clinical research project supported by nih. Furthermore, nih is instructed to conduct or support outreach programs for recruitment and retention of women and racial and ethnic group participants in clinical research projects. The law allows for exemptions in cases of research that are inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects, the purpose of the research, or other circumstances determined by is required to promulgate implementing guidelines by december 7, 1993. These guidelines are to specify when the inclusion of women and members of racial and ethnic groups as subjects in clinical research is inappropriate; how clinical trials must be designed to have adequate representation of subpopulations to distinguish whether a treatment affects a subpopulation differently than the other members of a research project; and the operation of outreach act includes express instructions for the nih guidelines. For example, it specifically prohibits cost considerations as a reason for determining that the inclusion of women and racial and ethnic groups is inappropriate for a clinical trial. In other clinical research projects, however, an exception from the prohibition on cost considerations is allowed when the data that would be obtained by the research project is or will be obtained through other means that provide data of comparable quality. An example of where nih may allow the exclusion of certain subpopulations on cost grounds is where a body of research on those groups exists and will be analyzed for differential response through other means, such as meta-analysis.

Another exception from the prohibition of cost considerations involves cases where there is already a substantial body of scientific data demonstrating that there is no significant difference between subpopulations in the effects of the variable being studied. This prohibition on the consideration of cost differs from the 1991 nih policy, which allows cost to be an acceptable rationale for women's exclusion from certain clinical ted citation:"6 legal considerations. For example, the act requires that clinical trials be designed and performed to enable a valid analysis of whether women or racial and ethnic groups respond differently than other subjects in the research. The committee intends for that definition to include an analysis of not only whether differences among study populations exist statistically, but an analysis of what those differences are as well as their relative importance for various population subgroups in the would indicate that women and racial and ethnic groups are to be enrolled in clinical research projects in numbers large enough to provide statistical significance, and that the analysis of such research is to include distinctions among and between the various population groups, including women. Provisions of the act require nih to establish internal and external committees to advise it on issues in women's health research, including gender differences in clinical drug trials and disease etiology, course, and treatment. Finally, the act mandates the creation of a national data system and clearinghouse on research for women's health (see chapter 2). The act does not clarify the extent of required inclusion of racial and ethnic groups in clinical research projects. The reasons for the unequal legislative specificity between women and minority groups is discussed in the house committee on energy and commerce report accompanying the bill: the committee explained that representative inclusion of minority groups poses a complex problem because not only are there variations between caucasians and people of color, but ted citation:"6 legal considerations. The report emphasized the importance of identifying such variations in clinical studies, but explains that this statutory language was chosen to prevent quotas or numerical goals for participation in clinical research projects (u. Fda guidelines are used to specify the information that data reviewers of such applications will expect in the research that supports the safety and efficacy of a are three fda guidelines that are particularly relevant to inclusion of women in clinical trials. Two of these are discussed in detail; discussion of a 1988 guideline is incorporated into the discussion of the 1993 guideline, where its content has been 1977 the fda issued guidelines for drug development: "general considerations for the clinical evaluation of drugs. At a recent conference evaluating the issues concerning the inclusion of women in clinical trials, cosponsored by fda and the food and drug law institute, critics claimed that an asymmetry existed in the risk-benefit analyses for research on men of reproductive potential and women of reproductive potential. They noted that according to the guidelines, research involving agents thought to cause reproductive harm in male animals could be conducted in men depending on "the nature of the abnormalities, the dosage at which they occurred, the disease being treated, the importance of the drug, and the duration of drug administration" (fda, 1977). The 1977 guidelines would have excluded women of reproductive potential from such trials based on the fact that potential offspring might be background paper accompanying recently issued fda guidelines explains that the 1977 guidelines may have discouraged participation ted citation:"6 legal considerations. As explained by fda, the 1977 guidelines had come to be considered by many to be "rigid and paternalistic, leaving virtually no room for the exercise of judgment by responsible female research subjects, physician investigators, and irbs" (fda, 1993). However, pharmacokinetic studies and the development of blood concentration data to detect important pharmacodynamic and effectiveness differences related to gender are still ion of both genders in clinical studies the guideline explains that subjects in a given clinical study should reflect the population that ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Emphasis is placed on the heightened importance of early pharmacokinetic studies for drugs with a narrow therapeutic range (drugs that have a small range of concentration between the point of effectiveness and the point of toxicity) where the generally smaller size of women could require modifications in addition, the fda lists three gender-related facets of pharmacokinetics that "should be considered during drug development": (1) variations in pharmacokinetics caused by the menstrual cycle, including comparisons ted citation:"6 legal considerations. In cases where such drugs do proceed into clinical trials, such studies should include monitoring and laboratory studies, as well as long-term follow-up, to enable detection of potentially deleterious policy on pregnant women as research 1975, dhhs adopted regulations concerning pregnant women as research subjects. Respect to dhhs-funded research; the regulations have not been adopted by the other 15 federal agencies that adopted the model federal policy. Selwitz and wermeling (1992), however, have noted that the regulations have had an impact on irb decisionmaking at many research institutions, regardless of whether projects are funded by t b of part 46 of title 45 of the code of federal regulations is entitled "additional protections pertaining to research, development, and related activities involving fetuses, pregnant women, and human in vitro fertilization" and describes protections when the pregnant woman and/or the fetus is the subject of research. Where the pregnant woman is the subject of research, the regulations specify that research cannot be approved except where "appropriate" studies on animals and nonpregnant individuals have been performed (45 cfr section 46. Minimal risk" is defined in another part of the regulations to mean that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life, routine physical examinations, or psychological tests (45 cfr 46. Addition to the foregoing limitations, the regulations require that the "mother and father" be legally competent and give their informed consent after being fully informed regarding the possible impact of the research on the fetus. The department of energy explicitly recommends that the guidance provided in subpart b of the dhhs regulations be followed if the proposed research involves pregnant women (department of energy, 1992). Laws and policies of state and federal government are expected to conform to the ultimate source of legal authority in this country-the u. The fourteenth amendment's express protections against laws that deny "equal protection" and "life, liberty, and property" are particularly relevant to questions of participation in clinical research. This has led some legal experts and advocates to conclude that exclusion of women from government-sponsored or government-regulated research violates constitutional standards of liberty and als of federal agencies understand that their policies and activities may be subject to constitutional challenge and review. For example, a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a federal biomedical research policy would likely name as defendants the department of health and human services and its secretary. Nevertheless, a citizen's petition filed with the fda in december 1992 argued that the policies and practices of the industry could count as government action, for purposes of construing the fourteenth amendment, to the extent that the fda or other federal agencies encourage the firms that they closely regulate to exclude women from studies (now legal defense and education fund, 1992). Women and their advocates have sometimes appealed to this right to protest exclusion from, for example, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (aids) research: women with aids or human immunodeficiency virus (hiv) infection have a right to choose for themselves whether to take on the health risks of drug research. Advocates say that the principles of private choice and good science should determine the extent of female participation in research, not the principle of government supreme court has repeatedly held that decisional privacy about matters affecting health care is among the liberties protected by the fourteenth amendment. As a consequence, there is uncertainty among lawyers and jurists about precisely what standard of review would apply in future fourteenth amendment privacy cases affecting women's health, including cases involving exclusion from uncertain status of privacy jurisprudence makes it difficult to predict the outcome of challenges to policies that exclude women from health research. Fetal ions to women's participation in clinical studies are often premised on an interest in doing what is best for women's own health and well-being; but in some instances they are also based on an interest in fetal ted citation:"6 legal considerations. The unborn are ascribed numerous legal interests, including those provided by the laws of inheritance and personal injury. The court saw no legally enforceable role for third-party notification and consent in the procreative decisionmaking of adult pregnant women. This is the strongest constitutional basis for an argument that husbands and fathers also have no legally enforceable role in deciding whether a pregnant woman may expose herself and a fetus to research-related health risks, even in the therapeutic states have attempted to control the behavior of pregnant women in order to protect fetuses. Courts have shown a reluctance to include a fetus in the definition of child ted citation:"6 legal considerations. But where courts have been hesitant, state legislatures have not: 12 states have made it a crime for a pregnant woman to use drugs and alcohol, and 19 states have passed laws allowing prosecutors to charge women with child abuse if they give birth to children with illegal drugs in their blood (green, 1993).

As a result, equal protection rather than privacy principles may ultimately be a stronger basis for a constitutional test of policies that, on their face or in effect, exclude women from full participation in clinical wholesale exclusion of women from research would raise obvious equal protection concerns. So, too, would what constitutional lawyers term the "underinclusion" and "overinclusion" of women relative to men in clinical research. Underinclusion" in this context could signify, for example, the inclusion of women in clinical research in numbers lower than good science requires; by contrast, ''overinclusion" in this context could refer to the preferential inclusion of women in numbers great enough to diminish the scientific merit of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment provides that: "no state shall . Significantly, each state has a constitution, and many state constitutions contain provisions similar to those found in the federal constitution that are held to require equal protection of the equal protection clause prohibits the federal government-including its regulatory agencies and research units-from engaging in certain forms of discriminatory disparate treatment. The supreme court has yet to decide a challenge to a demographic restriction on access to clinical studies, but legal experts maintain that research policies that result in the exclusion of women as a class, whether on their face (with explicit exclusionary language) or in effect (because they result in disproportionate participation of men and women), may be found to contradict the equal protection clause (charo, 1994; merton, 1992). Policies that explicitly favor participation of women in research also raise equal protection ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Most controversial research policies have excluded women or categories of women through explicit policy language. For example, the 1977 fda guidelines (now superseded) recommended the exclusion of women of childbearing potential from early phase drug trials; the regulations governing research on human subjects require that irbs approve research on pregnant women only if it involves treatment for the mother or fetus and minimal risk to the fetus (45 c. Other policies, however, may exclude women because their aggregate effect is the "underinclusion" or exclusion of women from full participation in research. For example, if evidence is found that the benefits of participating in research accrue disproportionately to men, it could be argued that the federal research policies effectively result in disparate treatment of men and women. At the same time, it is conceivable that a man could challenge the constitutionality of the nih revitalization act of 1993 if its language was legally determined to be an express preference for the participation of women in clinical studies and sufficient evidence was available to prove that the benefits of participation accrued disproportionately to supreme court has concluded that the equal protection clause restricts the right of the government to treat similarly situated persons and groups differently. Legal restrictions that curtail the rights of any racial group are immediately suspect, and courts are required to subject such restrictions to its most rigid review standard: "strict scrutiny. Only in rare instances, when government can identify "compelling" state interests that can be promoted only by racial discrimination, will the courts permit a racial restriction to , legal restrictions that impair the equal treatment of women are also inherently suspect. This standard, women's treatment in the context of government research may be unconstitutional under the principle of equal protection if it results in disparate public benefits, unless there is an exceedingly persua-. Under this level of scrutiny, the court usually gives great deference to the government agency and upholds the es that exclude pregnant federal regulation barring the use of pregnant women in research except in limited circumstances (45 c. This decision, permitting disparate treatment of pregnancy, appears to be directly relevant to any inquiry about the constitutionality of federal regulations governing research on pregnant women. The employment-related finding in johnson controls may apply more directly to the research study context only in what merton (1992) describes as the "rare circumstance that subjects are paid and their participation in research is fairly characterized as employment. Again, any policy that restricts the research participation of women of childbearing potential will also be questionable under the decision in johnson controls, in which the court struck down an exclusion policy that applied to fertile women as well as to pregnant es that favor inclusion of protection challenges also apply to benign classifications, which favor treatment of one group over another, usually to remedy past discrimi-. The success of such a challenge would likely hinge on whether the government could present evidence of past discrimination against women in research to justify the disparate treatment. Individuals and organizations involved in the conduct of research must deal with another set of legal considerations-liability. Fear of potential legal liability has been cited as one of the chief reasons that some women have been excluded from clinical research (nas, 1991; flannery and greenberg, 1994; merton, 1992). Increasing the number of women in clinical studies will simply add them to the class of all clinical research participants, and concern about participant injuries has never been great enough to halt research involving human subjects. Although recent evidence may indicate that exposure of the father to some chemicals may cause harm to a developing fetus (see chapter 7), the focus has overwhelmingly been on the potential for harm to offspring resulting from the mother's exposure either before or after recently, pharmaceutical companies have begun to recognize that they could also be liable for not including women in clinical research (bush, 1993). This creates a paradox for pharmaceutical manufacturers whose efforts to exclude women in order to protect themselves from liability may actually risk liability for ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Although fear of liability has never operated to exclude men as a class from participating in research, a general discussion of liability for research injuries is instructive in understanding how this liability operates in the context of research involving pregnant women and women of childbearing potential. The following sections discuss the incidence of research injuries, the legal theories that could serve as the basis for legal action, and the individuals and entities that might be found nce of research injuries and subsequent legal reported incidence of research injuries generally appears to be quite low. Nih and fda do not require investigators or sponsors to report research injuries, and there is no registry of injuries for publicly or privately sponsored research. Percent of research participants had been injured, with less than i percent of the injured participants suffering permanently disabling or fatal injuries (cardon et al. The incidence of injury in this survey was not separated by gender or by age; thus the incidence of injury to women, or to offspring as a result of women's participation in clinical studies, has not been recourse is sought in only a small percentage of research injuries, and an even smaller number ever reach court. The nih office of the general counsel is only aware of three legal actions for clinical research injuries where nih was involved in the past 20 years5 according to the fda office of the general counsel, that agency has never been the subject of a legal action resulting from a clinical trial injury (r. Have been approximately two dozen reported legal cases concerning research injuries-that is, cases in which a written opinion was officially published and thus available to courts, lawyers, and the public. Opinions are normally published in case reporters; occasionally, an opinion may be available only through on-line legal databases such as lexis and westlaw. Thus, the small number of reported research injury cases do not reflect all actions initiated as a result of research a recent institute of medicine (iom) workshop on aids vaccine clinical trials, the general counsel for a small u. That nine legal actions had been filed against his firm seeking damages for adverse reactions resulting from clinical trials of one drug. Of the extensive disclosure involved in the informed consent process, those injured in research seldom have a basis to pursue legal action (flannery and greenberg, 1994). When participants take part in the informed consent process, they may feel they have assumed the risks involved in research and therefore be less likely to initiate legal action (clayton, 1994). Participants may also be less likely to start legal proceedings because they usually receive excellent medical care if they have an adverse reaction. In addition, corporations generally take action to avoid risk, and plaintiffs have difficulty in proving that their injuries were caused by the research.

All of these considerations may contribute to the lack of legal activity in the area. With regard to injuries to offspring, until very recently fda guidelines discouraged the use of women of childbearing potential in early phases of research; hence the full potential for liability for injuries to offspring may be though there are few reported cases of research-related injury, fear of liability has played a key role in the exclusion of women in their childbearing years and pregnant women from many clinical studies. Factors that contribute to the intimidating legal landscape include the following:Legal actions can be extremely costly to defend, even if the plaintiff's case is weak and the question of liability is uncertain, and companies are inclined to take any action that appears likely to eliminate or reduce the risk of becoming involved in litigation (flannery and greenberg, 1994)6;. That the number of legal actions filed and the size of awards have increased dramatically in recent years;. Of liability for e of the paucity of reported decisions related to research-related injury, prediction of the risk of liability from the inclusion of women in clinical studies is difficult. Legal actions for research injuries have generally been based in tort law, the branch of the law that allows persons injured by certain conduct to seek monetary compensation. The three legal bases for a legal action for research injury are battery, negligence, and strict liability. The most common application of negligence in the area of research injury is lack of informed y battery generally is defined as unlawful and intentional bodily contact, directed at another person without that person's consent (keeton et al. In the context of research, if someone is used as a research subject without his or her knowledge or consent, all of the potential defendants may face a legal action for battery. To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant had a legal duty to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the plaintiff suffered an injury; and (4) this injury was caused by the defendant's breach of its duty (keeton et al. A duty may be mandated or implied by a statute, regulation, or guideline, as is the case in the context of research on human subjects. Federal policies for research on human subjects also may help set the standard of recover damages for negligence, the plaintiff must also prove that the defendant's actions caused the injury. Third parties may also recover money damages for injury to a research participant caused by negligence. For example, a spouse or child may claim loss of consortium, the legal term for the loss of "the society and affection" of the injured y, while it is necessary that there be some injury in order to recover damages, the injury need not necessarily be tangible. Liability pharmaceutical manufacturers, because they are in the business of selling a product, may also be held to the legal principles governing product liability. A manufacturer may keep its product from being considered "unreasonably dangerous" by giving appropriate warnings; the adequacy of these warnings is often the legal issue in contention. In a research context, the manufacturer is not selling the drug directly to the participant; nevertheless, one state court rejected the notion that strict liability would not apply to drugs in the experimental phase because they were not sold (merton, 1992, citing gaston v. The physicians are then responsible for prescribing drugs only for appropriate indications and for monitoring their actions for research injury based on a negligence theory frequently involve the doctrine of informed consent. Because nearly all research is conducted after securing consent from participants, most legal actions by participants for research injuries will be based on whether the information given to the participant before securing consent adequately warned of the potential risks (reisman, 1992). Is a distinction between the nature of the consent necessary to avoid a legal action for battery and that necessary to avoid an action for negligence. In the context of research, if persons are subjected to a study without their knowledge or consent, any of the potential defendants may ted citation:"6 legal considerations. If the initial consent to participate has been secured but it was obtained without adequate disclosure of risks and alternatives, the legal action will be based on lack of informed consent, which is considered to be distinction is important. The statute of limitations-which limits the number of years during which a legal action can be initiated-is usually longer for a negligence action. The plaintiff also must then prove that she would not have chosen to be a participant in the research had she been given more complete information (shack v. Federal regulations on informed consent for research will influence the standard against which a defendant will be judged; that is, whether the degree of disclosure was reasonable given the circumstances. The mechanisms for securing informed consent in any research protocol will also be subjected to scrutiny under the particular state's criteria for the standard of care for negligence actions. Recent decision from a north carolina court indicates that courts may require a higher standard for informed consent in nontherapeutic research injury cases. The plaintiff claimed he suffered organic brain damage from the dive and sued the researcher and the university, citing negligent failure to warn about the danger of brain damage. The court cited the dhhs regulations on informed consent for nontherapeutic research and held that the researcher and the university had a duty to ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Although the court found that in this particular case the risk of brain damage was not reasonably foreseeable, it nevertheless articulated a strict standard for informed consent to nontherapeutic research (kobasic, 1988, citing ity of potential s of legal action-potential defendants-in the research context may include public and private entities who sponsor or oversee research (such as nih, fda, and pharmaceutical manufacturing firms), as well as those who approve and conduct research (such as irbs, investigators, physicians, and research institutions). If an offspring is injured as a result of a parent's participation in a drug trial, the parent could also be a defendant, together with the research sponsor (see below). Agencies the liability of government agencies, because they conduct research in the name of the federal government, is a special one and is spelled out in federal law. The federal tort claims act (ftca), passed in 1964, sharply restricted federal sovereign immunity; government agencies that conduct, sponsor, or oversee research, such as nih and fda, may now be held liable if a research participant is injured as a result of negligence (28 u. For example, nih could not be sued for the negligence of an investigator in an extramural research protocol (united states v. Prohibits legal actions for battery and those arising out of the exercise of a "discretionary function," a provision that has been applied to exempt some activities where the government employee was acting pursuant to a federal statute, regulation, or guideline (wion, 1989). It is possible that this "discretionary function exception" to ftca may operate to bar a legal action for research injury against a federal agency such as nih or fda. If the federal policy is a general one, allowing federal employees some discretion in ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Outcome of a legal action for research injury against a federal agency, such as nih or fda, is uncertain.

Much of the conduct of research sponsors and investigators is spelled out in federal policies, but there are also areas of considerable discretion on the part of federal employees. Consequently, legal actions against fda in connection with ndas have been dismissed by federal courts under the discretionary function exception (wion, 1989). It is not clear whether the particular actions of a researcher/investigator in implementing federal policy regarding research on human subjects would be considered a scientific determination or a discretionary policy and research institutions the research institution and its irb may also be held liable for approving a negligent protocol or for not closely monitoring or supervising the ongoing research. Iolab corporation, a pennsylvania court recently found that a hospital, as a participant in a clinical investigation for the fda, had assumed a duty under federal regulations to ensure that informed consent was obtained from research have been no reported cases in which irb members were successfully sued for breaching their duty to protect research subjects, male or female (flannery and greenberg, 1994). Federal policies on informed consent are detailed but leave some discretion to the irb-for example, whether the research warrants inclusion of a statement about possible unforeseeable risks to an embryo or fetus. The potential conflict of interest that an investigator brings to the consent process (it is in an investigator's best interest to acquire participants), a court could find that an irb negligently relied on the investigator if it finds the participant never gave informed consent or was coerced into may also find irbs negligent if they fail to conduct a continuing review of approved research, as required by statute. A 1978 study by the national commission for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research revealed that only half of the irbs had a policy requiring investigators to report participant injuries; just over a third designated someone to observe a research project; and only half of this group routinely did so (bordas, 1984). The doctrine of sovereign immunity might bar legal actions against the state, thus protecting the irb and its members from liability. Thus, while there is potential for irbs to be the targets of legal action, both as individuals and as an entity, no irb has been successfully sued for a research injury, and they may be granted immunity under various state-created immunity ity for injuries to mentioned above, the greatest source of concern about liability is the possibility of injury to offspring when women of childbearing potential are included in clinical drug trials. As a result, there is a high level of concern about the inclusion of women of childbearing potential in ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Finally, securing a parent's consent to the research is unlikely to preclude recovery by a child for injuries in utero, because strong arguments can be made that a parent cannot waive a child's rights to sue. Law and prenatal injuries initially, recovery for prenatal injuries was denied because there was no authority for such an action; an unborn child was considered to be part of its mother, without a separate legal existence. Plaintiffs in a legal action for injuries to offspring include the child, as long as he or she is born alive, and the parents. When the plaintiff is the child, the likelihood of a successful legal action depends in part on the ability of the parents to show they would not have participated in the research had they known about the risks. Damage awards to these children can include pain and suffering and damages ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Of a liveborn child who allege that they would not have participated in the research if they had known about the risks may recover the additional medical expenses that are not covered in the damage award from the child's legal action. If the parents claim that they would not have had a child had they been fully informed of the risks of the research, their action is one for wrongful birth. If the child is stillborn as a result of a research injury, the parents may bring an action for wrongful death; in states that permit such a cause of action, the damage award is usually relatively small (clayton, 1994). At least three states have addressed children's claims that they were injured by their mothers' behavior during pregnancy, although none were in the context of research. In the research context, this would require an inquiry into whether it was reasonable for the woman to choose to participate in the protocol. Another commentator has argued that allowing third-party defendants to escape liability by bringing the woman into the action would contradict the rationale for not allowing parents to release the legal claims of their children (clayton, 1994). Finally, the court also may seek to have the defendant with greater financial resources be responsible for paying the damages; in most cases this will be a third party rather than a iency of informed consent under the limited case precedent available, the likelihood of a successful legal action for offspring injury has depended on whether obtaining informed consent from the woman is sufficient, in all circumstances, to avoid liability. Hence the committee frames the issue in terms of the woman's participation in clinical all of the reported cases of research injury, only two concerned injuries to offspring. Both cases came out of the university of chicago experiments with des in pregnant women, where there was a failure to secure the woman's consent to participate in the research (see appendix c). There is no case precedent to set the boundaries for liability for injuries to offspring when the woman's valid consent to the research has been least one court has held that the informed consent of the woman is sufficient to avoid liability for injury to offspring if the research is a therapeutic intervention for the fetus (roberts v. The risk of liability may be higher, however, for both the woman and the pharmaceutical company, if the intervention is a benefit to the mother but is not for a serious illness, or if there are safer ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Under the current regulations, in some cases parents may consent for their minor children to be research subjects in protocols that do not directly benefit the children. Dhhs may fund such research only where the irb finds that:The risk represents a minor risk over minimal intervention or procedure presents experiences to subjects that are reasonably commensurate with those inherent in their actual or expected medical, dental, psychological, social, or educational intervention or procedure is likely to yield generalizable knowledge about the subjects' disorder or condition that is of vital importance for the understanding or amelioration of the subjects' disorder or te provisions are made for soliciting assent of the children and permission of their parents or guardians (45 c. Permission of both parents is required unless one parent is deceased, unknown, incompetent, or not reasonably available, or when only one parent has legal custody of the child (45 c. Research involving greater than minimal risk, there is no category for research of no benefit to the child; however, the regulations do specify that, for research that would not otherwise be approved but "would present an opportunity to understand, prevent, or alleviate a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children," the irb must submit such research to dhhs for approval (45 c. A court may find, however, that these regulations governing research on minors do not apply to offspring injury resulting from a woman's participation in a clinical a woman consents to participate in a trial where the treatment is not for a serious illness and presents a known or possible significant risk of harm to the fetus, what would be the result? Because there is no legal precedent for such a scenario, the committee can only speculate about the outcome. If the research has been pursued negligently, or the informed consent process was not legally sound, it is possible that the offspring would recover under the same legal principles applicable to medical malpractice, as discussed there is no negligence, and informed consent of the woman has been properly secured, it may still be possible for the offspring to recover. Because it is the irb's responsibility to ascertain whether the benefits of ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Research protocol outweigh the risks for any class of potential participants, the irb could be liable for approving a protocol that permits participation of pregnant women where there is no benefit to the woman and some risk to the fetus. Another commentator noted that there is no precedent for imposing liability on a researcher who has properly obtained informed consent for harm to a participant's offspring. Because the harm is done by the woman's choice to participate in a research protocol, with full knowledge that it might have damaging consequences, the woman's negligent choice is an intervening cause in the injury (merton, 1992). There is considerable disagreement over whether a court would find a mother legally liable for injury to offspring resulting from her participation in a clinical trial, but some agreement about the remote likelihood of successful legal action by an injured offspring against a pharmaceutical manufacturer who has obtained valid informed consent from the mother (reisman, 1992; r.

For medical treatment of minors, one parent's informed consent is sufficient (holder, 1985); dhhs regulations for research on children also require the consent of only one parent. Because the concern is with harm to a fetus rather than a child, federal regulations with respect to fetal tissue research may also be relevant; where such research is permitted, it requires informed consent of both father and mother, unless the father's identity and location cannot reasonably be ascertained, the father is not reasonably available, or the pregnancy resulted from rape (45 c. This committee is concerned with the participation of women in clinical research, however, and thus the case law on abortion, where a woman chooses for her own benefit to undergo a medical procedure, may be more applicable. While certainly not decisive, it may be pertinent in decisions relating to liability for injuries to offspring from clinical research. Her injury is not a research injury as this term has been used thus far. In this example it is the woman's exclusion from clinical research, not her inclusion, that caused the injury. Increased awareness on the part of women that they are not always represented in the populations tested may contribute to an increasing number of legal actions for strict liability principles, manufacturers may be held liable for the defective design of a product, and a drug that has not been adequately tested may be found to be defectively designed (flannery and greenberg, 1994). Contrast to the lack of reported legal cases of injury from inclusion in research, there are a number of cases in which damages were awarded to plaintiffs, in part because of inadequate testing of the drug before it was released into the market. Courts have no qualms about scrutinizing the research design of a clinical trial and criticizing research sponsors, not only for unreliable technique and sloppy data handling but also for a lack of response to actual market conditions (merton, 1992, citing tinnerholm v. Legal actions where the plaintiff claims inadequacy of premarket testing, however, plaintiffs may face some difficulty in proving that their injuries were caused by a failure to test for foreseeable risks. Because a tort action must prove that the defendant's behavior caused the injury, the plaintiff attempted to persuade the court that because ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Although there is a general lack of case law on liability for injuries to research participants, there is some precedent for liability for exclusion from research. With regard to liability for offspring injury resulting from exclusion of women (or men) from drug trials, information about testing for reproductive and developmental effects is often not available for all drugs for which such testing would be sions and many federal regulations governing research on human subjects do not provide investigators and irbs with clear answers on issues concerning the inclusion of women and racial and ethnic groups in clinical studies. When nih updated its policy concerning inclusion of women in 1991, and added the sanction of possible reduction in the project's priority score for noncompliance, many in the research community came to believe that fda and nih policies were contradictory. Now that the fda has updated its 1977 policy, and nih is in the process of updating its 1991 policy, there is an opportunity to achieve congruence between the positions of the two committee recommends that nih work closely with the fda and with other phs agencies to make regulations and policies on inclusion of women and racial and ethnic groups consistent with one another and, wherever possible, to make them the policies of the two agencies are harmonized, there will still remain the task of educating the research community concerning what is required, and motivating that community to comply. Enunciation of sound and congruent policies, in conjunction with a comprehensive educational program, will ensure that policies and the rationales for the policies are properly understood by the research committee recommends that nih, in cooperation with fda, should institute a comprehensive education program directed at investigators, institutions and irbs on policies concerning the inclusion of women and racial and ethnic groups in clinical is impossible to quantify the risk of tort liability from the inclusion of women in clinical studies at this time, because: (1) there is no complete compendium of unreported cases involving settlements and (2) women have not been included in some major studies in the past. Difficulties of prediction are compounded because tort law is governed by the individual states, with many variations on issues such as whether a woman's informed consent will serve to bar an independent action by a child injured as a fetus during such research. Analysis of existing legal rules and principles seems to indicate that the likelihood of successful damage actions is limited. Nevertheless, broadening the research population to include those groups previously excluded may also generate additional legal actions that will test existing legal doctrine. Special set of concerns in the research area stems from the differing bases for liability according to which party is a defendant. A pharmaceutical company, for example, might be sued on the basis of strict liability, while a researcher ordinarily would be sued only on the basis of ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Regard to the latter, the new federal policies calling for inclusion of women in clinical studies will help establish new standards that will be relevant to legal of the concerns voiced about liability in the context of research including women are the same as those with regard to the tort system in general. There are inherent difficulties in assuring the unbiased nature of such testimony in what are often highly technical committee recommends that current and future initiatives toward general tort reform include attention to issues of research-related injury, including issues of proof of question of whether there should be a special compensation scheme for injuries sustained by children as a result of a parent's participation in a clinical study is similar to that raised in the context of research subjects in general. Appendix d discusses several existing compensation schemes dealing with children and illustrates these and other committee recommends that nih thoroughly review the area of compensation for research injury in general and that consideration of implementation of any compensation scheme include attention to prenatal and preconceptual injuries to children resulting from a parent's participation in a clinical current health care reimbursement system does not include coverage for medical care resulting from injuries sustained during research. This could be accomplished through a system of universal access with adequate committee recommends that health care reform efforts include considerations of medical care for research-related committee recognizes that, regardless of their basis or justification, fears about liability are real. On balance, however, the committee concludes that liability concerns should not represent an impediment to implementation of public policies that favor the broader inclusion of women in clinical ted citation:"6 legal considerations. Least one attorney for a pharmaceutical company has commented that it may not be the reality of the liability but the perception of legal risk that causes many drug companies to take defensive action to avoid possible involvement in a legal proceeding (iom, 1991b). Supreme court recently rejected the long-standing frye rule, which set the standard for the acceptability of scientific evidence in legal proceedings. The effect this change in evidentiary rules will have on the liability climate for research injuries is bergstrasser v. Father" is the term chosen here to include the biological father of the baby, the child's legal guardian, or anyone the law would recognize as having legal responsibility for the welfare of a (american law institute). The disenfranchisement of fertile women in clinical trials: the legal ramifications of and solutions for rectifying the knowledge gap. Presented at conference on the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical research, bethesda, md. Carlos caban advises the nih office of research on women's health with respect to its policy on the inclusion of women in clinical research. In: women and health research: ethical and legal issues of including women in clinical studies, volume 2, a. Berezuk, chief, human use review and regulatory affairs office, office of the surgeon general, re: human subjects research review board policy regarding pregnancy testing of research subjects (january 21). Office of health and environmental research, office of energy research, department of ment of veterans affairs. Institutional review boards in the university setting: review of pharmaceutical testing protocols, informed consent and ethical concerns. Citizens' petition to the fda, signed by aids service center hiv law project, now legal defense and education fund, and american civil liberties union, aids project.

Memorandum to scientific directors, clinical directors, chiefs, and icd clinical branches/laboratories from nih deputy director for intramural research. Women and health research: ethical and legal issues of including women in clinical studies, volume 2, a. Paper commissioned by the office of protection from research risks, national institutes of n, r. And health research: ethical and legal issues of including women in clinical studies, volume hardback | $ members save 10% or register to save! Yet professional journals and the popular press are increasingly criticizing medical research for ignoring women's health and health research examines the facts behind the public's perceptions about women participating as subjects in medical research. With the goal of increasing researchers' awareness of this important topic, the book explores issues related to maintaining justice (in its ethical sense) in clinical g experts present general principles for the ethical conduct of research on women--principles that are especially important in the light of recent changes in federal policy on the inclusion of women in clinical and health research documents the historical shift from a paternalistic approach by researchers toward women and a disproportionate reliance on certain groups for research to one that emphasizes proper access for women as subjects in clinical studies in order to ensure that women receive the benefits of book addresses present-day challenges to equity in four areas:Scientific--do practical aspects of scientific research work at cross-purposes to gender equity? Focusing on drug trials, the authors identify rationales for excluding people from research based on and ethical--the authors offer compelling discussions on subjectivity in science, the evidence for male bias, and issues related to race and ethnicity, as well as the recruitment, retention, and protection of research --women and health research reviews federal research policies that affect the inclusion of women and evaluates the basis for researchers' fears about liability, citing court --the authors focus on risks to reproduction and offspring in clinical drug trials, exploring how risks can be identified for study participants, who should make the assessment of risk and benefit for participation in a clinical study, and how legal implications could be landmark study will be of immediate use to the research community, policymakers, women's health advocates, attorneys, and 're looking at openbook, 's online reading room since 1999. Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're 're seeing our new chapter page and we'd like your opinion,Ethics and asethical and legal considerations in research subject and data protectionauthorsauthors and affiliationseugenia laureckisemail authoràlex martínez miralpeixchapterfirst online: 20 october this chapter as:Laureckis e. Springer, ss and ts and alised in to check le on all sales tax included if about institutional use cookies to improve your experience with our the browser controls to adjust the font size, or print this is ethics in research & why is it important? This is the most common way of defining "ethics": norms for conduct that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in church, or in other social settings. Ethical norms are so ubiquitous that one might be tempted to regard them as simple commonsense. On the other hand, if morality were nothing more than commonsense, then why are there so many ethical disputes and issues in our society? Plausible explanation of these disagreements is that all people recognize some common ethical norms but interpret, apply, and balance them in different ways in light of their own values and life experiences. For example, two people could agree that murder is wrong but disagree about the morality of abortion because they have different understandings of what it means to be a human societies also have legal rules that govern behavior, but ethical norms tend to be broader and more informal than laws. Although most societies use laws to enforce widely accepted moral standards and ethical and legal rules use similar concepts, ethics and law are not the same. We can also use ethical concepts and principles to criticize, evaluate, propose, or interpret laws. Peaceful civil disobedience is an ethical way of protesting laws or expressing political r way of defining 'ethics' focuses on the disciplines that study standards of conduct, such as philosophy, theology, law, psychology, or sociology. For instance, in considering a complex issue like global warming, one may take an economic, ecological, political, or ethical perspective on the problem. While an economist might examine the cost and benefits of various policies related to global warming, an environmental ethicist could examine the ethical values and principles at different disciplines, institutions, and professions have standards for behavior that suit their particular aims and goals. Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of research and apply to people who conduct scientific research or other scholarly or creative activities. See glossary of commonly used terms in research are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in research. First, norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data promote the truth and minimize , since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and coordination among many different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards promote the values that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. For example, many ethical norms in research, such as guidelines for authorship, copyright and patenting policies, data sharing policies, and confidentiality rules in peer review, are designed to protect intellectual property interests while encouraging collaboration. Most researchers want to receive credit for their contributions and do not want to have their ideas stolen or disclosed , many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the public. For instance, federal policies on research misconduct, conflicts of interest, the human subjects protections, and animal care and use are necessary in order to make sure that researchers who are funded by public money can be held accountable to the , ethical norms in research also help to build public support for research. People are more likely to fund a research project if they can trust the quality and integrity of y, many of the norms of research promote a variety of other important moral and social values, such as social responsibility, human rights, animal welfare, compliance with the law, and public health and safety. Ethical lapses in research can significantly harm human and animal subjects, students, and the public. For example, a researcher who fabricates data in a clinical trial may harm or even kill patients, and a researcher who fails to abide by regulations and guidelines relating to radiation or biological safety may jeopardize his health and safety or the health and safety of staff and and policies for research the importance of ethics for the conduct of research, it should come as no surprise that many different professional associations, government agencies, and universities have adopted specific codes, rules, and policies relating to research ethics. Many government agencies, such as the national institutes of health (nih), the national science foundation (nsf), the food and drug administration (fda), the environmental protection agency (epa), and the us department of agriculture (usda) have ethics rules for funded researchers. Other influential research ethics policies include singapore statement on research integrity, the american chemical society, the chemist professional’s code of conduct, code of ethics (american society for clinical laboratory science) american psychological association, ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, statements on ethics and professional responsibility (american anthropological association), statement on professional ethics (american association of university professors), the nuremberg code and the world medical association's declaration of following is a rough and general summary of some ethical principals that various codes address*:Strive for honesty in all scientific communications. Do not deceive colleagues, research sponsors, or the to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review, personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required. Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or data, results, ideas, tools, resources. Never t confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient sible h in order to advance research and scholarship, not to advance just your own career. Promote their welfare and allow them to make their own t for t your colleagues and treat them to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through research, public education, and discrimination against colleagues or students on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or other factors not related to scientific competence and in and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental proper respect and care for animals when using them in research. Do not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal subjects conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and maximize benefits; respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy; take special precautions with vulnerable populations; and strive to distribute the benefits and burdens of research fairly. It is therefore important for researchers to learn how to interpret, assess, and apply various research rules and how to make decisions and to act ethically in various situations. For example, consider the following case,The research protocol for a study of a drug on hypertension requires the administration of the drug at different doses to 50 laboratory mice, with chemical and behavioral tests to determine toxic effects.

He therefore decides to extrapolate from the 45 completed results to produce the 5 additional different research ethics policies would hold that tom has acted unethically by fabricating data. If this study were sponsored by a federal agency, such as the nih, his actions would constitute a form of research misconduct, which the government defines as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" (or ffp). It is important to remember, however, that misconduct occurs only when researchers intend to deceive: honest errors related to sloppiness, poor record keeping, miscalculations, bias, self-deception, and even negligence do not constitute misconduct. The error does not affect the overall results of his research, but it is potentially misleading. Failing to publish a correction would be unethical because it would violate norms relating to honesty and objectivity in are many other activities that the government does not define as "misconduct" but which are still regarded by most researchers as unethical. These are sometimes referred to as "other deviations" from acceptable research practices and include:Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the ting the same paper to different journals without telling the informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make sure that you are the sole ing a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though the colleague did not make a serious contribution to the sing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are reviewing for a data, ideas, or methods you learn about while reviewing a grant or a papers without ng outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of your ing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press conference without giving peers adequate information to review your ting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions of other people in the field or relevant prior hing the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that your project will make a significant contribution to the hing the truth on a job application or curriculum the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who can do it the rking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or post-doctoral g to keep good research g to maintain research data for a reasonable period of derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author's ing a student a better grade for sexual a racist epithet in the significant deviations from the research protocol approved by your institution's animal care and use committee or institutional review board for human subjects research without telling the committee or the reporting an adverse event in a human research g animals in ng students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution's biosafety ging someone's ng supplies, books, or g an experiment so you know how it will turn unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer over $10,000 in stock in a company that sponsors your research and not disclosing this financial rately overestimating the clinical significance of a new drug in order to obtain economic actions would be regarded as unethical by most scientists and some might even be illegal in some cases. However, they do not fall into the narrow category of actions that the government classifies as research misconduct. Indeed, there has been considerable debate about the definition of "research misconduct" and many researchers and policy makers are not satisfied with the government's narrow definition that focuses on ffp. However, given the huge list of potential offenses that might fall into the category "other serious deviations," and the practical problems with defining and policing these other deviations, it is understandable why government officials have chosen to limit their y, situations frequently arise in research in which different people disagree about the proper course of action and there is no broad consensus about what should be done. In these situations, there may be good arguments on both sides of the issue and different ethical principles may conflict. She receives a request from another research team that wants access to her complete dataset. On the one hand, the ethical norm of openness obliges her to share data with the other research team. Another option would be to offer to collaborate with the following are some step that researchers, such as dr. Wexford, can take to deal with ethical dilemmas in research:What is the problem or issue? In this case, the issue is whether to share information with the other research is the relevant information? In this case, there may be other choices besides 'share' or 'don't share,' such as 'negotiate an agreement' or 'offer to collaborate with the researchers. Do ethical codes or policies as well as legal rules apply to these different options? Broader ethical rules, such as openness and respect for credit and intellectual property, may also apply to this case. Laws relating to intellectual property may be there any people who can offer ethical advice? May be useful to seek advice from a colleague, a senior researcher, your department chair, an ethics or compliance officer, or anyone else you can trust. Wexford might want to talk to her supervisor and research team before making a considering these questions, a person facing an ethical dilemma may decide to ask more questions, gather more information, explore different options, or consider other ethical rules. Ideally, a person who makes a decision in an ethical dilemma should be able to justify his or her decision to himself or herself, as well as colleagues, administrators, and other people who might be affected by the decision. Endorsing these methods in this context need not imply that ethical decisions are irrational, however. The main point is that human reasoning plays a pivotal role in ethical decision-making but there are limits to its ability to solve all ethical dilemmas in a finite amount of ing ethical conduct in academic institutions in the us require undergraduate, graduate, or postgraduate students to have some education in the responsible conduct of research (rcr). The nih and nsf have both mandated training in research ethics for students and trainees. Many academic institutions outside of the us have also developed educational curricula in research of you who are taking or have taken courses in research ethics may be wondering why you are required to have education in research ethics. You may believe that you are highly ethical and know the difference between right and wrong. Indeed, you also may believe that most of your colleagues are highly ethical and that there is no ethics problem in research.. Indeed, the evidence produced so far shows that misconduct is a very rare occurrence in research, although there is considerable variation among various estimates. Of researchers per year (based on confirmed cases of misconduct in federally funded research) to as high as 1% of researchers per year (based on self-reports of misconduct on anonymous surveys). See shamoo and resnik (2015), cited y, it would be useful to have more data on this topic, but so far there is no evidence that science has become ethically corrupt, despite some highly publicized scandals. Even if misconduct is only a rare occurrence, it can still have a tremendous impact on science and society because it can compromise the integrity of research, erode the public’s trust in science, and waste time and resources. In any case, a course in research ethics will have little impact on "bad apples," one might ing to the "stressful" or "imperfect" environment theory, misconduct occurs because various institutional pressures, incentives, and constraints encourage people to commit misconduct, such as pressures to publish or obtain grants or contracts, career ambitions, the pursuit of profit or fame, poor supervision of students and trainees, and poor oversight of researchers (see shamoo and resnik 2015). In any case, a course in research ethics can be useful in helping to prevent deviations from norms even if it does not prevent misconduct. Education in research ethics is can help people get a better understanding of ethical standards, policies, and issues and improve ethical judgment and decision making. Many of the deviations that occur in research may occur because researchers simply do not know or have never thought seriously about some of the ethical norms of research. For example, some unethical authorship practices probably reflect traditions and practices that have not been questioned seriously until recently. Another example where there may be some ignorance or mistaken traditions is conflicts of interest in research.

A researcher may think that a "normal" or "traditional" financial relationship, such as accepting stock or a consulting fee from a drug company that sponsors her research, raises no serious ethical issues. Or perhaps a university administrator sees no ethical problem in taking a large gift with strings attached from a pharmaceutical company. Maybe a physician thinks that it is perfectly appropriate to receive a $300 finder’s fee for referring patients into a clinical "deviations" from ethical conduct occur in research as a result of ignorance or a failure to reflect critically on problematic traditions, then a course in research ethics may help reduce the rate of serious deviations by improving the researcher's understanding of ethics and by sensitizing him or her to the y, education in research ethics should be able to help researchers grapple with the ethical dilemmas they are likely to encounter by introducing them to important concepts, tools, principles, and methods that can be useful in resolving these dilemmas. Scientists must deal with a number of different controversial topics, such as human embryonic stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, and research involving animal or human subjects, which require ethical reflection and b.