ABSTRACT
Biomedical and behavioral research may affect strongly held social values and thereby create significant controversy over whether such research should be permitted in the first place. Institutional review boards (IRBs) responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of participants in research are sometimes faced with review of protocols that have significant implications for social policy and the potential for negative social consequences. Although IRB members often raise concerns about potential long-term social implications in protocol review, federal regulations strongly discourage IRBs from considering them in their decisions. Yet IRBs often do consider the social implications of research protocols and sometimes create significant delays in initiating or even prevent such research. The social implications of research are important topics for public scrutiny and professional discussion. This article examines the reasons that the federal regulations preclude IRBs from assessing the social risks of research, and examines alternative approaches that have been used with varying success by national advisory groups to provide such guidance. The article concludes with recommendations for characteristics of a national advisory group that could successfully fulfill this need, including sustainability, independence, diverse and relevant expertise, and public transparency.
Subject(s)
Advisory Committees , Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , Ethics Committees, Research , Human Experimentation/ethics , Informed Consent/ethics , Social Values , Adolescent , Adolescent Behavior , Alcoholism/therapy , Antisocial Personality Disorder/therapy , Ethics, Research , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Genetics, Behavioral/ethics , Harm Reduction/ethics , Humans , Mental Disorders/therapy , Public Opinion , Public Policy/trends , United States , Violence/prevention & controlABSTRACT
The unique historical aspects of Pelger and Huet's discovery of the Pelger-Huet cell highlight the diagnostic challenge that this morphologic finding presents to the physician. Making the diagnosis of the benign autosomal dominant anomaly is complicated by the morphologically similar pseudo-Pelger-Huet cell, which can signify underlying myeloid dsyplasia. This article relates the history of the Pelger-Huet anomaly as well as describes the clinical significance and diagnostic workup for the finding of a Pelger-Huet cell on peripheral smear.
Subject(s)
Neutrophils/pathology , Pelger-Huet Anomaly , Animals , Cell Nucleus/ultrastructure , Child , Diagnosis, Differential , Eosinophils/pathology , Female , Fetal Death/genetics , Genes, Dominant , History, 20th Century , Humans , Infections/blood , Leukemia, Myeloid/blood , Leukemia, Myeloid/diagnosis , Myelodysplastic Syndromes/blood , Myelodysplastic Syndromes/diagnosis , Netherlands , Pedigree , Pelger-Huet Anomaly/blood , Pelger-Huet Anomaly/diagnosis , Pelger-Huet Anomaly/genetics , Pelger-Huet Anomaly/history , Receptors, Cytoplasmic and Nuclear/deficiency , Receptors, Cytoplasmic and Nuclear/genetics , Lamin B ReceptorSubject(s)
Ethics, Medical , Peer Review/ethics , Power, Psychological , Scientific Misconduct/ethics , Humans , MinnesotaSubject(s)
Ceremonial Behavior , Cross-Cultural Comparison , Ethics, Clinical , Ethics, Research , Human Body , Umbilical Cord , History, 16th Century , History, 17th Century , Humans , Male , Ownership , UgandaSubject(s)
Art/history , Literature/history , Munchausen Syndrome/history , History, 18th Century , HumansABSTRACT
The oversight of research involving human participants is widely believed to be inadequate. The U.S. Congress, national commissions, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Institute of Medicine, numerous professional societies, and others are proposing remedies based on the assumption that the main problems are researchers' conflict of interest, lack of institutional review board (IRB) resources, and the volume and complexity of clinical research. Developing appropriate reform proposals requires carefully delineating the problems of the current system to know what reforms are needed. To stimulate a more informed and meaningful debate, we delineate 15 current problems into 3 broad categories. First, structural problems encompass 8 specific problems related to the way the research oversight system is organized. Second, procedural problems constitute 5 specific problems related to the operations of IRB review. Finally, performance assessment problems include 2 problems related to absence of systematic assessment of the outcomes of the oversight system. We critically assess proposed reforms, such as accreditation and central IRBs, according to how well they address these 15 problems. None of the reforms addresses all 15 problems. Indeed, most focus on the procedural problems, failing to address either the structure or the performance assessment problems. Finally, on the basis of the delineation of problems, we outline components of a more effective reform proposal, including bringing all research under federal oversight, a permanent advisory committee to address recurrent ethical issues in clinical research, mandatory single-time review for multicenter research protocols, additional financial support for IRB functions, and a standardized system for collecting and disseminating data on both adverse events and the performance assessment of IRBs.