+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ 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

Designing Oversight for Nanomedicine Research in Human Subjects: Systematic Analysis of Exceptional Oversight for Emerging Technologies



Designing Oversight for Nanomedicine Research in Human Subjects: Systematic Analysis of Exceptional Oversight for Emerging Technologies



Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13(4): 1449-1465



The basic procedures and rules for oversight of U.S. human subjects research have been in place since 1981. Certain types of human subjects research, however, have provoked creation of additional mechanisms and rules beyond the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) Common Rule and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) equivalent. Now another emerging domain of human subjects research-nanomedicine-is prompting calls for extra oversight. However, in 30 years of overseeing research on human beings, we have yet to specify what makes a domain of scientific research warrant extra oversight. This failure to systematically evaluate the need for extra measures, the type of extra measures appropriate for different challenges, and the usefulness of those measures hampers efforts to respond appropriately to emerging science such as nanomedicine. This article evaluates the history of extra oversight, extracting lessons for oversight of nanomedicine research in human beings. We argue that a confluence of factors supports the need for extra oversight, including heightened uncertainty regarding risks, fast-evolving science yielding complex and increasingly active materials, likelihood of research on vulnerable participants including cancer patients, and potential risks to others beyond the research participant. We suggest the essential elements of the extra oversight needed.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 052509895

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23226969

DOI: 10.1007/s11051-011-0237-y


Related references

Recommendations for nanomedicine human subjects research oversight: an evolutionary approach for an emerging field. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40(4): 716-750, 2014

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

The Case for a New System for Oversight of Research on Human Subjects. Journal of Medical Ethics 26(5): 334-339, 2000

New oversight agency proposed for human research subjects. Human Research Report 15(3): 9, 2002

Revolution or reform in human subjects research oversight. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40(4): 922-929, 2014

The case for a new system for oversight of research on human subjects. Journal of Medical Ethics 26(5): 334-339, 2000

An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Analysis 28(5): 1197-1220, 2008

Federal oversight and regulation of human subjects research -- an update. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10(3): 261-264, 2001

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, 2003

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

'Human subjects research' as stigmatized activity: Implications for oversight reform. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 71: 417-419, 2016

National, independent oversight: reinforcing the safety net for human subjects research. Accountability in Research 7(2-4): 303-309, 2001

Nanotechnology, risk, and oversight: learning lessons from related emerging technologies. Risk Analysis 30(11): 1688-1698, 2011

NBAC report calls for increased federal oversight of research on human subjects. Journal of Investigative Medicine 49(4): 307-308, 2001

Moving beyond compliance: measuring ethical quality to enhance the oversight of human subjects research. Irb 29(5): 9-14, 2007