The ramifications of including genetic components in the clinical studies conducted in non-academic settings create unique ethical challenges. We used a qualitative research design consisting of semi-structured interviews that took place between October 2010 and September 2012. The sample consisted of 80 participants − 38 physicians and 42 coordinators − who worked across a number of different settings, including clinics, private practices, small hospitals, free standing research centers, and blended hospital-institutes in both rural and urban communities in 13 states across (...) the United States. The respondents primarily conducted industry sponsored trials and recruited their own patients as research participants. A majority of the respondents (65%) reported that most of the studies they conducted included an additional genetics component, and so participants were asked to donate specimens for genomics or biobanking. While genomics association studies were perceived as being of benefit, awareness of ethical implications associated with such studies was limited. The rapid advances in genetic technologies make it hard for clinicians and coordinators to help patients make informed decisions about participating in clinical research, and underscore the need to ensure that the regulations governing research on human subjects keep pace with the social and technological changes. It seems essential to discern legitimate ethical concerns and find ways to convey what is going on, what is possible and what might not be possible in terms of protecting privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality. (shrink)

The revised Common Rule adopts the reasonable person standard to guide research disclosure. Some members of the research community contend that the standard is confusing and ill-suited to the research oversight system. Yet the revised rule is not as radical as it might seem. During the 1970s, judges started using the standard to evaluate negligence claims brought by injured patients who said doctors had failed to obtain informed consent to the harmful procedures. In its influential Belmont Report, the National Commission (...) recommended application of a “reasonable volunteer standard” to guide IRBs evaluating research disclosures. Evidence also suggests that IRBs often invoke the reasonable person standard in deliberations about consent forms. But past application of the standard has been informal and uneven. Robust application of the reasonable person standard will require researchers and IRBs to learn more about what ordinary people want and need to know about the studies they are invited to join. Input from people with personal experience as study participants could be particularly useful to this effort. (shrink)

In 2017, federal officials issued a revised version of the Common Rule, the federal regulations that govern much of the human subject research conducted in the United States. Two provisions on information disclosure have reportedly provoked confusion among researchers and people responsible for research oversight. These provisions incorporate the familiar and foundational legal concept known as the reasonable person standard, applying this to research disclosure. Although other, long‐standing Common Rule provisions require reasonableness judgments, the new provisions differ in that they (...) require reasonableness to be judged from the ordinary person's perspective instead of the perspective of scientists, clinicians, and other experts generally involved in designing and reviewing human studies. (shrink)

Over the past 20 years, clinical research has migrated from academic medical centers to community-based settings, including rural settings. This evolving research environment may present some moral hazards or challenges that could undermine traditionally accepted standards for the protection of human subjects. The study described in this article was designed to explore the influence of motives driving the decisions to conduct clinical trial research in rural community settings. The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 80 participants who conducted clinical trials with (...) rural subjects. The interviews provided a way to examine the influence of budgetary factors when deciding to conduct a clinical study, how information about the budget and the purpose of the study is conveyed to research participants, and the potential willingness of clinicians and coordinators to enroll in the kinds of studies they offer. The findings suggest that clinical trial research in rural communities may challenge clinicians’ abilities to balance the needs of the patient with the needs of the research enterprise. Few respondents seemed to recognize the traditionally recognized hazards of a dual relationship, specifically the moral risks of trying to attend to the interests of both patient and industry. It seems important to re-examine how we protect human subjects and what such protection should look like as research becomes part of the way medical care is provided, even in very rural areas. (shrink)