Leslie Wolf

This study examined how research conducted at several federally funded institutions designated as Clinical Research Centers or Specialized Programs of Research Excellence addressed the issues of consent, control over biological materials, confidentiality, and disclosure of results in protocols and consent forms for genetic research with stored biological materials. Although a majority of the documents reviewed addressed most of the issues raised in the research ethics literature, topics identified in the literature that were missing include the return of research results, the right to withdraw from research involving biological materials, and the consent of children when they become legal adults. If typical, these findings suggest greater educational efforts may be needed to prompt investigators and IRBs to consider these and other issues that were either not addressed in the protocols or consent forms or were addressed inadequately

Stem cell science, using both embryonic and a variety of tissue-specific stem cells, is advancing rapidly and offers promise to improve medical care in the future. Yet, with the notable exception of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, a long-established approach to treating certain cancers of the blood system, this promise is long term and most stem cell research focuses on basic scientific questions or the collection of pre-clinical data. Although some clinical trials are underway, most are focused on safety, and novel effective therapy is likely a long way off. Despite the preliminary nature of most stem cell research, however, numerous clinics around the world offer stem cell “therapies” to patients today outside the context of a clinical trial. Although the number of patients who have received these stem cell-based interventions is unknown, anecdotal reports suggest a substantial population of patients is willing to try them, despite unresolved questions about their safety and efficacy.

This article reviews recent developments in health care law, focusing on controversy at the intersection of health care law and culture. The article addresses: emerging issues in federal regulatory oversight of the rapidly developing market in direct-to-consumer genetic testing, including questions about the role of government oversight and professional mediation of consumer choice; continuing controversies surrounding stem cell research and therapies and the implications of these controversies for healthcare institutions; a controversy in India arising at the intersection of abortion law and the rights of the disabled but implicating a broader set of cross-cultural issues; and the education of U.S. health care providers and lawyers in the theory and practice of cultural competency.

Administraation of antiretroviral therapy to women during pregnancy, labor and delivery, and to infants postnatally can dramatidy reduce mother-to- child HIV transmission. However, pregnant women need to know that they are HIV-infected to take advantage of antiretroviral therapy, and many women do not know their HIV status. One-half of HIV-infected infants in the United States were bornto women who had not been tested for HIV or for whom the time of testing was not known. Although fewer than 400infants are infected perinatally in the United States each year, that number could be reduced even further through policies aimed at HIV testing during pregnancy.The reasons toadopt such a policy are strong: the pathophysiology of perinatal transmission is clear, prophylaxis is effective and safe, and the intended beneficiaries of the intervention - babies - cannot protect themselves.

Answering important public health questions often requires collection of sensitive information about individuals. For example, our understanding of how HIV is transmitted and how to prevent it only came about with people's willingness to share information about their sexual and drug-using behaviors. Given the scientific need for sensitive, personal information, researchers have a corresponding ethical and legal obligation to maintain the confidentiality of data they collect and typically promise in consent forms to restrict access to it and not to publish identifying data.The interests of others, however, can threaten researchers' promises of confidentiality when legal demands are made to access research data. In some cases, the subject of the litigation is tightly connected to the research questions, and litigants' interest in the data is not surprising. Researchers conducting studies on tobacco or occupational or other chemical exposures, for example, are relatively frequent targets of subpoenas.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed substantial changes to the current regulatory system governing human subjects research in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, entitled “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators.” Some of the most significant proposed changes concern the use of biospecimens in research. Because research involving biological materials begins with an initial interaction with an individual, such research falls squarely within the human subjects research regulatory framework known as the “Common Rule,” which applies to research conducted or funded by the HHS and the other signatory agencies and departments. However, as described in detail below, much biospecimen research may fall within exemptions and exceptions under the Common Rule and, thus, may be conducted without consent. The ANPRM proposes requiring written consent for research use of biospecimens, even if the biospecimens were initially collected for a purpose other than research or have been stripped of identifiers.

Researchers now commonly collect biospecimens for genomic analysis together with information from mobile devices and electronic health records. This rich combination of data creates new opportunities for understanding and addressing important health issues, but also intensifies challenges to privacy and confidentiality. Here, we elucidate the “web” of legal protections for precision medicine research by integrating findings from qualitative interviews with structured legal research and applying them to realistic research scenarios involving various privacy threats.

The revised Common Rule includes a new option for the conduct of secondary research with identifiable data and biospecimens: regulatory broad consent. Motivated by concerns regarding autonomy and trust in the research enterprise, regulators had initially proposed broad consent in a manner that would have rendered it the exclusive approach to secondary research with all biospecimens, regardless of identifiability. Based on public comments from both researchers and patients concerned that this approach would hinder important medical advances, however, regulators decided to largely preserve the status quo approach to secondary research with biospecimens and data. The Final Rule therefore allows such research to proceed without specific informed consent in a number of circumstances, but it also offers regulatory broad consent as a new, optional pathway for secondary research with identifiable data and biospecimens. In this article, we describe the parameters of regulatory broad consent under the new rule, explain why researchers and research institutions are unlikely to utilize it, outline recommendations for regulatory broad consent issued by the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections, and sketch an empirical research agenda for the sorts of questions about regulatory broad consent that remain to be answered as the research community embarks on Final Rule implementation.

This article reviews recent developments in health care law, focusing on the engagement of law as a partner in health care innovation. The article addresses: the history and contents of recent United States federal law restricting the use of genetic information by insurers and employers; the recent federal policy recommending routine HIV testing; the recent revision of federal policy regarding the funding of human embryonic stem cell research; the history, current status, and need for future attention to advance directives; the recent emergence of medical–legal partnerships and their benefits for patients; the obesity epidemic and its implications for the child’s right to health under international conventions.

We interviewed 85 institutional review board chairs from a national sample of IRBs that review mental health research, asking them to rate the helpfulness of various resources that might be accessed when reviewing an ethically challenging research protocol. Each resource was rated on a four-point scale, and spontaneously offered comments were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed as well. A majority of IRB chairs indicated that talking to scientific colleagues and experts, participant representatives, and ethics experts was very helpful when reviewing ethically challenging research. Fewer chairs felt that more guidance from the Office for Human Research Protections would be very helpful. In addition, we found that chairs whose committees reviewed fewer protocols were more likely to consider increased access to Internet resources and research ethics experts to be very helpful. Based on these findings, we hypothesize that increasing IRB access to scientific experts, participant representatives, and ethics experts might aid IRBs in addressing ethical challenges when reviewing protocols, but increased OHRP guidance probably would not, and less experienced chairs may need more targeted resources

We conducted this study to determine whether medical schools address conflicts of interest among their IRB members and staff, and, if so, in what ways. We analyzed the conflict of interest policies for 121 U.S. medical schools whose research is funded by the National Institutes of Health. About three-quarters of the schools we studied have written policies that address IRB conflicts of interest, and almost 80% of them defined the term, although their definitions varied substantially. The majority of IRBs explicitly prohibit a conflicted member from participating in discussion and voting, but few explicitly prohibit serving as a reviewer or extend their policies to cover IRB staff. This illustrates important gaps in these policies. A few policies even conflict with federal requirements. More specific policies might improve consistency and increase confidence in the integrity of IRB oversight