CTSA Institution Responses to Proposed Common Rule Changes: Did They Get What They Wanted?

Suzanne M. Rivera,Lisa Nichols,Lois Brako,Genevieve Croft,Toni Russo,Tara Tran
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617698606
2017-03-21
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
Abstract:In 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and 15 other federal departments and agencies proposed revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the departments sought to strengthen, modernize, and make more effective human subjects regulations while reducing administrative burden, delay, and ambiguity. We reviewed public comments from National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutions on key provisions of the NPRM to understand how the proposed changed were received at research-intensive institutions. CTSA institutions responding to the proposed rule were predominantly opposed to the major proposals, including proposed changes to the treatment of de-identified biospecimens, demonstrating a lack of support from academic medical centers. In January 2017, a Final Rule was issued. We compare the Final Rule to what was proposed.
ethics,medical ethics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?