Thursday, January 31, 2013

Are you interested in becoming more involved with PRIM&R?

by Sue Fish, PharmD, MPH, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the Boston University School of Public Health and Director of the Masters in Clinical Investigation program at Boston University School of Medicine

PRIM&R’s Membership Committee is charged with cultivating leaders from within the membership. As the new chair of this committee, I wanted to take a moment to reach out to all of you with an opportunity to get involved and play a larger role in PRIM&R membership activities.

We are currently looking to fill one seat on the Membership Committee, which is a sub-committee of PRIM&R’s Board of Directors. As a representative slice of PRIM&R’s membership, we work to strengthen this community by improving the reach of membership benefits and volunteer opportunities. Committee members participate in conference calls, meet up at PRIM&R conferences, and correspond via email throughout the year to strategize ways to grow and develop our community of nearly 3,900 members.

If you are an invested PRIM&R member (or would become one!), and have experience in IRB/IACUC management or biomedical/research ethics, please consider applying to serve on the Membership Committee.

Responsibilities of Committee members are to:
  • Work with staff to develop policies and initiatives that support the growth and development of PRIM&R’s membership; 
  • Participate in approximately six conference calls per year;
  • Attend membership-related events at conferences; and
  • Review applications for PRIM&R’s Regional Connections Program.
Applicants should email a cover letter that includes a 300-word description of why you are interested in becoming a member of this committee and what you could contribute to its work along with a copy of your CV to membership@primr.org by Friday, February 8, 2013. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my colleague Megan Frame, membership coordinator, at membership@primr.org.

We look forward to receiving your application!

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Remembering Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and reflecting on his impact

by Joan Rachlin, JD, MPH, Executive Director

I spend a lot of time thinking about how to best achieve the delicate balance between ardently and adequately protecting research subjects, on the one hand, and promoting ethical and responsible research, on the other. Protecting those who participate in research is fundamentally a human rights and human dignity issue, and I thus drew a lot of inspiration from three commemorations I attended in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I'd like to share a few highlights of each, since your work embodies Dr. King's commitment to helping those who are vulnerable.

The first event featured Nobel Prize winning author and former Princeton professor, Toni Morrison. The gathering was sponsored by the Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project (CRRJ) at Northeastern University School of Law. At CRRJ, a group of law students work with CRRJ director, Margaret Burnham, to reopen and redress "cold cases" from the Jim Crow era. The Project has done remarkable work, and, after the program ended, I was privileged to meet some of the clients who had lost parents, children, siblings, or other loved ones to racially motivated violence. These murders were either never prosecuted, or prosecuted and the defendants/perpetrators found not guilty by all-white juries.

The CRRJ Project locates surviving family members, listens to their stories, and discusses with them what steps might be taken to help ease their unresolved grief, as without justice there can be no peace, and without peace, grief can be unrelenting.  Where possible, the Project prosecutes the perpetrators and brings them to justice. When legal remedies are not available, though, other paths to peace and closure are pursued. For example, some of the families wanted the death certificates of their loved ones changed to reflect the true cause of death, i.e., murder, instead of the assorted lies and misrepresentations listed on the documents by complicit coroners throughout the south. Others wanted proper tombstones, and still others wanted markers erected at the scene of the crime to serve as a constant reminder of the tragic consequences of racist violence. Most, though, simply wanted to be heard, and to then be assured that the truth of what happened would be recorded so that their loved ones would be remembered and their memories honored.

The next commemoration I attended was held at my synagogue, where Liz Walker, a noted TV anchor and much loved member of the Boston community, spoke about her work building a school for girls in the Sudan. She told of her journey from the world of journalism to the Harvard Divinity School, and then finding and pursuing the sacred work of educating girls in one of the poorest and most politically perilous parts of the world. Liz related her incredulity that a tiny band of mostly women could build and sustain a school halfway around the world. She quoted from a poem by Edward Everett Hale, noting that "we cannot do everything, but we must do something."

Finally, I visited the Healey Library at the University of Massachusetts, where I saw a remarkable exhibit from the Peace Abbey, a now closed school and education center in Sherborn, MA. Dr. King, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Father Daniel Berrigan and his family, and the Dalai Lama were among the many centerpieces of this powerful installation. But, there were also tales of a runaway cow named Emily, the peace-loving Abbey founder, Lewis Randa, and the peace curriculum that took root there. The books, documents, photos, sculpture, art, furnishings, and other archival materials there could have occupied me for days, not just hours, but one quote in particular caught my eye; it said that when making a decision,  one should always ask "does this path have a heart?"

While not directly tied to the world of research ethics, these stories echo PRIM&R’s own core values, and in particular, the value of social responsibility, reminding me that it takes the efforts of many to protect the past, present, and future citizens of the world. Check out the links when you have a moment and prepare to be inspired.

Thanks for reading!

Monday, January 28, 2013

Understanding the importance of scientific advancement: An interview with Christian Newcomer

Today we’d like to introduce you to Christian (Chris) Newcomer, VMD, MS, DACLAM, who is a recent addition to PRIM&R’s Board of Directors.

Dr. Newcomer is the executive director of the Association for Assessment  and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC International) and has participated in AAALAC’s review activities for the past 27 years. Prior to his appointment at AAALAC International, he held academic and leadership positions in laboratory animal medicine at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tufts-New England Medical Center, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Veterinary Resources Program at the National Institutes of Health, and The Johns Hopkins University. He is a past president of the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM) and of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS), and a past vice president of the AAALAC International Council on Accreditation. He was a member of PRIM&R’s 2012 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) Conference Planning Committee and is co-chairing the 2013 IACUC Conference Planning Committee. Since 1989, he has frequently participated as faculty of PRIM&R IACUC Conferences.

Avery Avrakotos (AA): When and why did you join the field? 
Dr. Chris Newcomer (CN): I effectively became interested in laboratory animal medicine in 1974 as a veterinary student at the University of Pennsylvania. My interests wandered as a veterinary student because veterinary medicine is rich with enticing opportunities, and my first position was in large animal medicine in the department of veterinary sciences at Penn State. However, the large diversity of species in laboratory animal medicine, my interest in science, and the importance of scientific discovery to our own interests and stewardship of the planet drew me back to the lab animal medicine specialty.

AA: What skills are particularly helpful in a job like yours? 
CN: I think the skill set that has proven helpful for my job also applies widely for many other positions. All aspects of communication have been very important in my current, and many previous, positions; this includes context, clarity, brevity, transparency, inclusivity, and non-equivocation whenever possible. Similar qualities apply to decision-making and I would add the importance of using an evidenced- based process, soliciting and incorporating information from diverse perspectives, and ensuring an acceptable outcome. I would also be remiss if I neglected to offer the obvious: operating with honesty, admitting to, and (hopefully) quickly learning from mistakes have been the mainstays for me operating in leadership positions.

AA: Tell us about one or more articles, books, or documents that have influenced your professional life. 
CN: Two books published at the beginning of my career had a big impact on my professional preparation and later commitments. The first was Doctor Rat (1976) by William Kotzwinkle, who became really well known through his other books and the movie ET. Doctor Rat made it very clear that scientists (and I, as their partner) would have to stand up to the very sophisticated manipulation of public opinion through poignant, deceptive artistic interpretations. The second book is well-known to all, Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (1979), which guaranteed that the discussion of the ethics of research animal use would become an integral component of my career. Our community has made some inroads in this area, but too many remain uncommitted to the cause of public education, allowing ignorance to prevail.

AA: Have there been any PRIM&R events or talks that you have attended that have significantly impacted your approach to your work? If so, what were they and how did they influence you? 
CN: Charlie McCarthy’s presentation at the first PRIM&R IACUC Conference on the implementation of the revised and fortified Public Health Service (PHS) Policy was an eye-opener. Only a handful of programs had the resident professional and technical talent, organizational structure, and commitment to meet the intent of the Policy promptly. It was clear that the changes engendered by the PHS Policy would vastly improve animal care and use, and that it would help research programs that depend on animals provide the impetus for professional program and teamwork development in many disciplines. This afforded an explosion in leadership, and provided opportunities for leaders to cultivate others and grow the image of success. Rarely is a generation given such a prime opportunity to leverage and accelerate success and know they are doing a fine service to the advancement of science. Frank Loew, former dean of Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine and later president of Becker College, gave extraordinary talks on several occasions at PRIM&R; these always reminded us that intellectual discourse and rigorous conclusions thrive on the civil expression of diverse viewpoints without ideological filtration. That approach has proven to be very beneficial to me personally and has been a guiding principle of PRIM&R in my experience.

AA: How has membership in PRIM&R’s community of research ethics professionals helped you to advance in your career? 
CN: PRIM&R’s record in education, professional development, and existence as avenue for growing consensus through exchange of ideas has been outstanding for those involved in IACUC oversight and policy implementation. The collective confidence and competence of the PRIM&R IACUC community allows institutional problems to be solved efficiently and proportionally to need. As a member of this community, I have been better equipped to advise and help institutions, and have benefited from feedback on my own ideas before launching new initiatives or corrective measures. This has saved valuable time which I turned to other uses.

AA: Why did you agree to serve on PRIM&R’s Board of Directors? 
CN: I applaud and admire PRIM&R for the role it has played in advancing research ethics and I was interested in working in the leadership to advance the mission. Further, I was very interested in learning more about the issues on the human subject protections side of PRIM&R because I have participated as a human subject in several studies since 1974 and believe that it is inevitable that scientific developments will accelerate the movement of products into human trials in the future. The system of oversight support for humans and animals needs to be robust and continue to evolve, and I hope to contribute to PRIM&R’s leadership in this area.

AA: What advice have you found most helpful in your career?
CN: I think that it would be to remember the importance of science. Scientific advancement is central to our efforts and should bring a sense of urgency to our efforts.

AA: What is something you know now that you wish someone had told you when you first entered this field? Or, what is an example(s) of a lesson you had to learn the hard way?
CN: I was not well prepared for the patience, lobbying, and occasional tradeoffs that were required to accomplish goals that I regarded as obviously laudable, reasonable, and easily accessible; but, I cannot make the claim that my mentors neglected to alert me to this. In the end, I think we all find one or two predilections or approaches that we need to curb to be effective. I’ve worked on my own persistently with some success. I am still a work in progress and can live with that.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Research Ethics Roundup: Arguments for a “learning healthcare system,” ideas for combating public distrust of drug companies, and much more!

Winter is here in full force, so if you've been looking for an excuse to stay out of the cold, look no further! Our latest Research Ethics Roundup features articles on red-hot topics in research, from rising concerns over insider trading to defending research with animals, so cozy up next to the fire and dig in!

40 years after Tuskegee: Reuniting medical research and practice: This article from The Atlantic proposes the development of a "learning healthcare system," where each episode of clinical care generates data and evidence to improve the care of other patients. This system would allow scientists to monitor the effectiveness of common medical treatments, without the burdensome regulations and procedures of experimental medical research.

Rebuilding trust and effectively communicating ethics efforts: Recent surveys suggest that distrust of big pharma is intensifying. Jennifer E. Miller, PhD, argues that drug companies could be doing a lot more to address these perceived failures. She believes that ethics accreditation focusing on areas of public concern may be a successful means to accomplish such an end.

Animal research is an ethical and vital tool to fight disease: This post from the blog Bill of Health, presents a compelling argument for why animal research is both ethical and valuable. The author, Tom Holder, cites advances in human medicine facilitated by animal research, as well as regulations intended to promote animal welfare as justifications for the practice.

Insider trading sparks concerns: A recent insider trading case involving a researcher who provided confidential information to a hedge-fund manager has cast a shadow over “expert networks” that connect clients, often from the financial industry, with experts who can provide technical information.

Looking for more news? PRIM&R members can visit our Knowledge Center to find more recent scholarly journal and popular media articles pertaining to research ethics. Not yet a member? Learn more about becoming a member by visiting our website.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Uncovering a wealth of resources for human research protections programs

by Jackie Tekiela, MS, CIP, Institutional Review Board Administrator at Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare

As expected, the 2012 Advancing Ethical Research Conference delivered. I returned with huge amounts of information, and many ideas and networking contacts. Now that the holidays have passed, and I’ve about caught up on my work, I’m taking some time to reflect on my experiences and apply some of what I’ve learned.

Some of my goals for the conference were to gather information about evaluating our human research protections program, developing a research education program, and using institutional review board (IRB) metrics to improve performance and quality. None of these are new topics, but being from a small institution, I find it’s particularly helpful to hear about methods and process that others have found helpful when thinking about what might work best for my institution.

I attended a number of sessions that focused on these topics. One presentation I  found particularly useful was Developing and Implementing an Education Program at an Institution With a Small Research Program (B25). During this session, presenters Eric Allen and Michelle Feige focused on ways to develop and implement an education program for small institutions, keeping in mind this often means limited resources.

The session covered the process of developing and evaluating a research education program, from conducting a needs assessment, requesting resources, assessing delivery methods, evaluating the content of various groups, and identifying the impact of training. The group also discussed how to establish the IRB’s value, methods of funding programs, and how to leverage current staff time to get the most out of your education program. The session handouts (available to attendees on the Conference Passport) include sample topics for educational programs for IRB members, staff, and researchers.

A large part of the session focused on resources that any institution can use to evaluate and implement a research education program. Both presenters focused on free or low cost options, which can be especially important to smaller institutions or those with limited resources. Here are some of the resources that were mentioned:

Virtual education: 
Ongoing and at your own pace:
Speakers/events:
Since I’ve been back, I’ve reviewed many of these options and am excited at how I might incorporate some of these ideas into a reasonable, manageable, and worthwhile research education program at my institution. I hope you find the information useful as well, and please comment below with any other tips that you think may be helpful to others working towards developing and evaluating a research education program.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Clinical trial awareness is important for parents

by Mindy Reeter, BS, CIP, Associate Director of the Office for Human Research Oversight at the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

As a human subjects protections professional, my children have always been exposed to medical research, and as consumers who utilize teaching hospitals and clinics for healthcare, my family has received our fair share of consent/assent forms inviting us to participate in research.

I have always realized my family’s familiarity with medical research is not the norm, but I became painfully aware of this fact when participating in a PRIM&R webinar titled Including Children in Clinical Research: Stakeholder Perspectives, Ethical Challenges, and IRB Strategies.

During the November webinar, presenter, Victoria Pemberton, RNC, MS, CCRC, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reported on a study that concluded that 62 percent of Americans could not name any institution or organization where pediatric research is conducted, however, 94 percent recognize that participation in clinical research is very important to advance medical science.

This lack of awareness is fueled by misunderstanding and negative perceptions of the risks associated with participation in pediatric clinical trials. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is not taking these statistics lightly. To help increase awareness, NIH has added a powerful educational tool for individuals considering having their child participate in a clinical trial: the Children and Clinical Studies website, which features a documentary video for parents.

The website offers interviews with research professionals, parents, and child subjects, while stressing that “very little testing has been done on kids utilizing the drugs that kids take or may need take in the future.” The quality of the videos is top-notch and the information is necessarily basic. My hope is that future development might include more examples of families participating in oncology clinical trials, which represent 80 percent of patients diagnosed with a childhood cancer. I am also hopeful that the NIH will identify more ways that this tool can be utilized.

As the parent of an eighth grade student, I would recommend the addition of this video to the standard health class curriculum. Students already receive training in first aid, CPR, and emergency situation. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to also cover the concepts—altruism, being a responsible citizen—presented in the video. As one parent states in the video, “knowledge is power.” While this phrase can be applied to studies shedding light on particular diseases, it also an apt description of the importance of understanding clinical trials.

In the second half of the webinar, presenter Yoram Unguru, MD, MS, MA, FASPHO, of Johns Hopkins University, reminds us that the federal regulations require institutional review boards (IRBs) to determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of a child when, in the judgment of the IRB, the child is capable of providing assent. Unfortunately, the regulations place the onus on the IRB to grapple with the capacity issue and offer little guidance as to what constitutes meaningful assent.

Although my IRB routinely reviews research involving children, this webinar was enlightening. It encouraged me to think about the resources available to parents who are considering their child’s participation in research. I know that I plan to approach the health teacher at my child’s school to gauge her interest in the NIH documentary, something I am sure will make me the coolest mom ever!

Interested in checking out the webinar Mindy discussed? The webinar archive for Including Children in Clinical Research: Stakeholder Perspectives, Ethical Challenges, and IRB Strategies is available for purchase.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Practical, near-term benefits of attending the AER

by Susan Trinidad, MA

It’s now more than a month after the 2012 Advancing Ethical Research (AER) Conference, and I’m back in cold, gray Seattle. But it’s not just the memory of sunshine in San Diego that I’ve found myself returning to. Since I returned home, I’ve benefited from my attendance at the conference in several different ways:

These are all examples of why I keep coming back to PRIM&R’s AER Conference: because I learn new things, I meet new and interesting people, and I hear ideas that spark new connections in my own work.

Interested in gaining access to materials from the presentations Susan mentioned? Learn more about purchasing access to the Conference Passport for the 2012 AER Conference on our website

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Susan Delano: Honoring a visionary involved in the creation of the CIP® credential

At the 2012 Advancing Ethical Research Conference, PRIM&R was honored to present the 2012 Applied Research Ethics National Association (ARENA) Legacy Award to Susan J. Delano, CIP. The ARENA Legacy Award, which was established in 2006 to recognize a PRIM&R member who has made an exemplary contribution to the organization’s mission and goals, fits the 2012 recipient perfectly.

Since she first became involved in research ethics in 1980, Susan has remained committed to the field through mentoring, teaching, and leadership. As the membership division of PRIM&R from 1986 to 2005, ARENA strove to encourage the professional advancement of individuals working in the field of subject protections. And, from the beginning of her career, Susan has upheld those same objectives. She made it a personal goal to ensure a high level of professionalism and education among those charged with protecting human subjects in the hope that, by placing high demands on institutional review board (IRB) professionals, the research enterprise they oversee would ultimately become more ethical. We here at PRIM&R believe that Susan has done this, and much more, during her tenure in the field of research ethics.

Susan began her career in 1980 when she was hired as the IRB staff person at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. She would later join the Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc. (RFMH), a not-for-profit organization affiliated with the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene located in Albany, NY. Today, Susan remains the deputy managing director of RFMH, a position she has held since 2001.

In 1999, Susan received an email inviting her to participate in a series of meetings. Those meetings, which she gladly attended, ultimately led to the creation of the Certified IRB Professional (CIP®) credential. After working as a pivotal member of the group that established and cultivated the growth of the CIP program, Susan served as a chair of the CIP Council from 2005 until her term ended in December of 2011. To this day she remains an active member of the PRIM&R family, as she frequently presents at PRIM&R meetings on a wide range of topics including the CIP program, issues relating to vulnerable populations, including those who are decisionally impaired, and informed consent.

Like this award, Susan has honored the living legacy fostered by PRIM&R’s former membership division. With virtually no mention of her own work, she graciously accepted the award with appreciation for others who both share and contributed to her successes. Susan, who has been a PRIM&R member for more than 18 years, also generously thanked ARENA for facilitating her relationships with many others in the field. PRIM&R is very grateful that she accepted the challenge when presented with a 1999 email from fellow CIP-creators whose subject heading was “An offer you cannot refuse.”

Enjoy the presentation of the 2012 ARENA Legacy Award to Susan below:

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

How to Survive a Plague offers a powerful reflection on the early years of the HIV/AIDS pandemic

by Joan Rachlin, Executive Director

A remarkable documentary, How to Survive a Plague (HtSaP), was shown at PRIM&R’s 2012 Advancing Ethical Research (AER) Conference last month. HtSaP was just nominated for an Academy Award last week in the Best Documentary category, and I am writing to recommend it to you because it has particular relevance for those working in the research ethics field. In addition to telling the story of the terrifying and tragic early years of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, HtSaP powerfully documents the efforts by the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) and the Treatment Action Group (TAG) to accelerate the development of drugs for AIDS at a time when there was nothing in the therapeutic cupboard. The film is packed with a palpable determination borne of impossible desperation, love, hope, tenderness, community, and heaping doses of inspiration, and you can stream it via Netflix.

How to Survive a Plague was directed by David France and edited and co-produced by T. Woody Richman. Full disclosure is necessary here because Woody is my cousin, and I could not be more proud of his work, which includes the Academy Award-nominated and Sundance Grand Jury Prize-winning documentary, Trouble the Water, in addition to Capitalism a Love Story, Fahrenheit 9/11, and 2002 Oscar winner Bowling for Columbine, among many other films.

While I could easily go on about Woody, that’s not my intention here today. Instead, I have two purposes in writing this post, the first of which is to tell you a bit about the audience reaction to HtSaP at the December AER Conference, and the second is to recognize and thank three longstanding and cherished members of PRIM&R’s community who were at the barricades during the early years of the plague.

First, the audience reaction to HtSaP at AER was, in a word, incredible. A facilitated question and answer session followed each of the two showings, and those who approached the microphones reflected a representative slice of the film’s heartbreak and humanity. Attendees spoke of their personal experiences with HIV/AIDS and/or about the loss of loved ones. They expressed their gratitude for the film, and eloquently and powerfully paid tribute to its timeless messages of activism, community, love, and hope during the unremitting despair of those dark days. Conference participants also noted the ways in which ACT UP and TAG irreversibly changed the federal drug approval process, and how their work led to, among other things, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) willingness to have consumers on its many advisory boards (there were no consumers on FDA advisory boards in the 1980s and early 1990s, and now there are over 175).

In general, it was clear that watching the film unlocked many memories for those in the audience, and listening to them reminded me anew that concepts such as “informed consent” and “risk-benefit analysis” change when the therapeutic cupboard is empty.

Sadly, Spencer Cox, one of the ACT UP and TAG leaders featured in HtSaP, died on December 18 at the age of 44. David France noted that, “as an AIDS activist, Spencer helped spearhead research on protease inhibitors and played a central role in bringing the drugs to market — and saving eight million lives.” France also released this one and a half minute outtake from HtSaP that exudes the wisdom, compassion, and humanity for which Spencer Cox was well known in the movement.

Second, I’d like to give warm and heartfelt thanks to those three friends of PRIM&R’s, heroes all, who have been involved with the search for HIV/AIDS therapeutics since the pandemic first hit. Our heroes are Cornelius Baker, Susan Ellenberg, and Richard Klein—all of whom are PRIM&R “lifers.” Cornelius, Susan, and Richard were all in San Diego last month, and Cornelius and Richard facilitated the post-film discussions referred to above.

Cornelius is a longtime member of the PRIM&R Board, and he has been one of the most effective leaders of the HIV/AIDS movement. He has received many awards and high profile commission appointments as a result of his clarity, advocacy, humility, and brilliance, included among them The American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) Award of Courage. I’ve included one of the many links about his work, as well as a statement by him on the occasion of receiving the amfAR award. The web is full of remarkable accounts of Cornelius’ achievements, and it was an honor to have his experience and expertise as a companion to the HtSaP showing in San Diego.

The next “hero” I want to talk about today is actually a “shero:” Susan Ellenberg, professor of statistics at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, who was one of the few scientists featured in HtSaP. There were good reasons for that special status, since Susan not only met and engaged with the members of ACT UP and TAG, but also took the time to walk them through the maze of biostatistics that makes the world of clinical research inaccessible to so many of us. One activist, Gregg Gonsalves, paid tribute to her and a few other statisticians in an article describing how it was that the members of ACT UP and TAG were able to become lay scientists, and in doing so, change the HIV/AIDS world.

Last, but most certainly not least, is Richard Klein, director of the Patient Liaison Program in FDA’s Office of Special Health Issues, another longstanding and unfailingly wonderful PRIM&R faculty member and friend. Richard has been at the FDA for 36 years, many of which have been spent steeped in HIV/AIDS issues. This clip speaks to Richard’s deep and wide involvement with the pandemic. Richard moderated the Q&A during the second showing of HtSaP and, in the course of that session, spoke movingly of taking a young FDA colleague to see the AIDS Memorial Quilt when it was displayed on the National Mall in Washington, DC last summer in conjunction with the XIX International HIV/AIDS Conference. The colleague told him that he did not know anyone who had died of AIDS, which Richard found unthinkable given all of the losses experienced by those of us who lived through those years. This is yet one more reason why HtSaP should be required viewing for all, but particularly for younger professionals in the research ethics field.

All three of these friends of PRIM&R were part of the “boots on the ground” vanguard during those despairing early years, and we are grateful to them for sharing their experiences with our community for decades now. Cornelius, Susan, and Richard are three of the many in the PRIM&R community whose science, scholarship, and advocacy have made and are still making a difference, and they are why being associated with PRIM&R has been both a privilege and pleasure for me.

Before closing, one more shout out to David France and cousin Woody Richman for documenting the heroism, courage, brilliance, and effectiveness of the ACT UP and TAG members. It likely won’t surprise you to know that many members of the public believe that that AIDS is no longer a killer since the advent of protease inhibitors and the “cocktails,” but they could not be more wrong. Over 1.8 million people died from AIDS-related illnesses in 2010 and the number is expected to remain stable until we find ways to get life-saving drugs to those not only in resource-scarce countries, but throughout the U.S. as well. Those numbers and this film remind us that we still have many rivers to cross in the search for evermore effective drugs to combat HIV/AIDS.

I’d like to end by sending New Year’s greetings your way, and by thanking all those in the PRIM&R community for doing your parts to keep hope alive for those living with diseases. Research is the last best hope for many of them, and it is one of my fondest wishes that all who face health challenges will become not just “survivors,” but “thrivers.”

Friday, January 11, 2013

Research Ethics Roundup: Controversy over genetically modified rice, rehabilitating unethical researchers, and much more!

2013 is here, and what better way to kick off the New Year than with a brand new Research Ethics Roundup? In this installment, we take a look at the unprecedented rise of opiate painkiller prescriptions, the discrepancy between perceived and actual safety levels in laboratories, an international controversy over genetically modified foods used to fight pediatric malnutrition, and more!

‘Rehab’ helps errant researchers return to the lab: Restoring Professionalism and Integrity in Research (RePAIR), a program at Saint Louis University, seeks to rehabilitate researchers who have sullied their ethical records. With the help of a sizable grant from the National Institutes of Health, RePAIR has developed a three-day course that examines the factors that led to misconduct, reviews ethical decision-making skills, and assists researchers in developing plans to help ensure issues do not reoccur.

Rising painkiller addiction shows damage from drugmakers’ role in shaping medical opinion: Prescriptions of opioid painkillers have risen nearly 300% over the past twenty years. This is disturbing news given recent findings indicating that such medications may be significantly more addictive than originally reported. Factors that contributed to Food and Drug Administration approval and the aggressive distribution of the drugs, including clinical trials and drafting of policy, may have been unduly influenced by the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the drugs.

Safety survey reveals lab risks: A recent survey conducted by Nature found that while most lab workers (86%) believe their labs are safe, nearly half had experienced injuries. The survey also found that about two-fifths of participants had not received safety training on specific hazards or agents they worked with, two-fifths of junior scientists reported that people worked alone in their lab every day, and close to one-fifth of researchers said that lab safety rules had negatively affected their lab productivity. According to Lou DiBerardinis, head of health and safety at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “this survey is a baseline study that leaves more questions than answers, but a perception survey is supposed to raise questions that need to be looked at.”

Golden rice trial triggers sackings, investigation: Three Chinese researchers who published a paper on the use of golden rice, a type of genetically modified rice with high levels of vitamin A, have been fired. Greenpeace East Asia, strong opponents of the use of genetically modified foods, had raised concerns about the study after the paper was published, prompting Chinese officials to report that the trial had been conducted without proper approval. Tufts University is now conducting an investigation to determine if the researchers complied with necessary regulations.

Looking for more news? PRIM&R members can visit our Knowledge Center to find more recent scholarly journal and popular media articles pertaining to research ethics. Not yet a member? Learn more about becoming a member by visiting our website.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Wordful Wednesday: Share your high point from AER 2012

Starting the morning with the soulful stylings of local a cappella groups is among the many traditions at PRIM&R’s annual Advancing Ethical Research (AER) Conference. At the 2012 Advancing Ethical Research (AER) Conference, the audience was captivated by Pointless—a boisterous all male a cappella group from Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, CA.


What’s your favorite memory from the 2012 AER Conference? Share in the comments. 

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Updates from the field: The Council for Certification of IRB Professionals (CCIP) Annual Meeting

by Amy Davis, senior director for programs and publications

The Council for Certification of IRB Professionals (CCIP) held its annual meeting two months ago in Portland, Oregon. CCIP is a group of PRIM&R volunteers who establish Certified IRB Professional (CIP) policy and develop new exam questions. Every year, the group meets to review exam results, new exam questions, and program policies.

At this year’s meeting, the CCIP determined that the 2012 CIP exam results were consistent with the average historical pass/fail rates from past years. This information is important evidence of the exam’s reliability and validity. The Council also reviewed new exam questions for 2013, and set the dates for the 2013 test periods as follows:
  • Spring Testing Period
    Registration deadline: January 15
    Exam dates: March 2-16

  • Fall Testing Period
    Registration deadline: August 1
    Exam dates: September 7-21 
The Council is pleased to report that there will be no increase to exam fees in 2013.

The Council made slight revisions to the CIP eligibility criteria. For specific wording changes, interested applicants are advised to consult the 2013 CIP handbook on PRIM&R’s website. The eligibility change is intended to recognize the evolving roles of staff within human subjects protections programs. Under the new criteria, individuals who have relevant experience in areas of the human subjects protection program, beyond the institutional review board (IRB), may be eligible to pursue CIP certification.

Another change to program policies relates to recertification. The Council decided that effective for those who recertify in 2013, Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs, Inc. (AAHRPP) conference sessions will be treated similarly to those educational programs sponsored by the Office for Human Research Protections, in that continuing education credits earned from AAHRPP educational sessions will be deemed issued by a “recognized accrediting body” so long as the content falls within the CIP Body of Knowledge and exceeds the basic level of education for IRB professionals.

Finally, the Council considered strategies for leading the CIP program through the transition to new federal regulations should revisions to the Common Rule be finalized in 2013. Such plans will be shared as needed. In sum, the Council is confident that the program is strong, and will continue to thrive in the year ahead.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions about the CCIP or these program updates.
 
ban nha mat pho ha noi bán nhà mặt phố hà nội