+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress II: principles and recommendations for oversight of an institution's financial interests in human subjects research



Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress II: principles and recommendations for oversight of an institution's financial interests in human subjects research



Academic Medicine 78(2): 237-245



The AAMC Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research issued this report, the second of two, in October 2002. (The first report is also published in this issue of Academic Medicine.) This report offers a unique perspective on the new phenomenon of "institutional" conflicts of interest. The task force acknowledges the diverse obligations of academic institutions that conduct research and also invest in-and accept the philanthropy of-commercial research sponsors. The task force emphasizes the importance of disclosing institutional financial interests as an integral part of the research process, critical to allaying public concerns, and to strengthening the trust relationship between research subjects, the public and the scientific community. The task force found that the safety and welfare of research subjects and the objectivity of the research could be-or could appear to be-compromised whenever an institution holds a significant financial interest that may be affected by the outcome of the research. Thus, the task force recommends separating the functional and administrative responsibilities related to human subjects research from those related to investment managing and technology licensing, and encourages the establishment of institutional conflicts-of-interest committees. As in the first report, the task force recommends that institutions should develop policies establishing a rebuttable presumption against the conduct of research at or under the auspices of an institution where potential conflicts in human subjects research are identified. This presumption against engaging in the research is to be balanced against compelling circumstances in favor of the conduct of the proposed research activity.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 050051694

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 12584107


Related references

Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress I: policy and guidelines for the oversight of individual financial interests in human subjects research. Academic Medicine 78(2): 225-236, 2003

Recommendations for nanomedicine human subjects research oversight: an evolutionary approach for an emerging field. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics 40(4): 716-750, 2012

Research in the hospital setting on human subjects. Protecting the patient and the institution. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine new York 60(5): 391-398, 1993

New recommendations for protecting children as human research subjects. Human Research Report 19(11): 1-2, 2004

Trust and reciprocity: foundational principles for human subjects imaging research. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences. le Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques 34(1): 3-4, 2007

Walking the talk of trust in human subjects research: the challenge of regulating financial conflicts of interest. Emory Law Journal 52(1): 327-401, 2003

Protecting subjects' interests in genetics research. American Journal of Human Genetics 70(4): 965-971, 2002

Protecting subjects without hampering research progress: guidance from the office for human research protections. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 74(Suppl. 2): S60, 2007

Improving protection for human research subjects: better oversight, not just more oversight. American Journal of Bioethics 8(11): 13-15, 2008

Designing Oversight for Nanomedicine Research in Human Subjects: Systematic Analysis of Exceptional Oversight for Emerging Technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13(4): 1449-1465, 2011

The limits of disclosure: what research subjects want to know about investigator financial interests. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics 34(3): 592-9 481, 2006

Presidential address, 55th annual American Society for Artificial Internal Organs conference: conflicts of interest: eliminating bias and preserving trust in human subjects research. Asaio Journal 55(6): 527-531, 2010

Protection of human subjects; research involving those institutionalized as mentally infirm: report and recommendations of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Federal Register 43(53): 11327-11358, 1978

Advance directives in dementia research: promoting autonomy and protecting subjects. Irb 23(1): 1-6, 2003

Negotiating a system purchase: 8 principles for protecting your institution's interests. Healthcare Executive 7(1): 17-19, 1991