Financial Conflicts of Interest in Human Subjects Research: The Problem of Institutional Conflicts

Author:

Barnes Mark,Florencio Patrik S.

Abstract

In both academic literature and the media, financial conflicts of interest in human subjects research have come center-stage. The cover of a recent edition ofTimemagazine features a research subject in a cage with the caption human guinea pigs, signifying perhaps that human research subjects are no more protected from research abuses than are laboratory animals. That magazine issue highlights three well-publicized cases of human subjects research violations that occurred at the University of Oklahoma, the University of Pennsylvania, and Johns Hopkins University.At St. John Medical Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a study that was co-sponsored by the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center investigated an experimental vaccine for malignant melanoma. In that case, the chair of the university's institutional review board (IRB) — the committee within each medical institution charged with ethics review of human research projects undertaken at that institution — and the dean of the University's College of Medicine allegedly concealed from both the IRB and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a report by an outside consulting firm that had found severe deficiencies with the melanoma vaccine study being conducted at the medical center.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Health Policy,General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Reference86 articles.

1. 40. National Association of Securities Dealers, NASD Rule 2711, Research Analysts and Research Reports, available at ; Securities and Exchange Commission, Amendments to NYSE Rules 472 and 351, available at .

2. 43. Internal Revenue Service, Excise Taxes on Excess Benefit Transactions, 65 Federal Register at 3076 et seq. (January 23, 2002). 44. The intermediate sanctions rules provide that when a disqualified person benefits from an excess benefit transaction, that disqualified person will be liable for an excise tax equal to 25 percent of the excess benefit. If the excess benefit is not corrected (i.e., returned to the institution), the disqualified person can be liable for an additional excise tax of 200 percent of the excess benefit.

3. Pseudoaccountability

4. 42. Id.

5. 46. Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990).

Cited by 22 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3