> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • Student-Success Resource Center
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
News
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Complexity Slows Drive to Revise Human-Subjects Rules

By  Paul Basken
August 31, 2011

Universities knew they faced a complicated and far-reaching challenge when the federal government announced last month that it planned the first overhaul in three decades of regulations governing research on humans.

That realization was confirmed Wednesday with an announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that it would accept university pleas for a one-month extension of the period for comments on the plan.

Current federal rules governing the protection of human subjects were established in 1981, after abuses such as the Tuskegee syphilis study were publicized, and at a time when most drug trials were carried out at a single location.

We're sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network.

Please allow access to our site, and then refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, please contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

Universities knew they faced a complicated and far-reaching challenge when the federal government announced last month that it planned the first overhaul in three decades of regulations governing research on humans.

That realization was confirmed Wednesday with an announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that it would accept university pleas for a one-month extension of the period for comments on the plan.

Current federal rules governing the protection of human subjects were established in 1981, after abuses such as the Tuskegee syphilis study were publicized, and at a time when most drug trials were carried out at a single location.

The proposed changes are intended to reflect a changing landscape, in which most drug trials are now conducted in various university and nonuniversity settings, with half of those required by the federal Food and Drug Administration taking place outside the United States. One of the key proposed changes would be the use of a single review board to evaluate the proposed protocol of a particular drug trial, rather than the current system of separate reviews at each physical testing location.

The government proposal, however, includes many other suggested changes, including the creation of shorter and easier-to-understand patient-consent forms, and updating and clarifying the types of research that could be considered minimal risk and therefore exempted from review or processed on an expedited basis. That kind of change is especially appealing to historians, who have felt unfairly caught up in restrictions on their ability to merely conduct interviews with people.

ADVERTISEMENT

Universities are finding the implications far-reaching, making it difficult for their advocacy groups, such as the Association of American Universities, to quickly coordinate recommendations on how the government should proceed, said Carrie D. Wolinetz, associate vice president for federal relations at the AAU.

The Department of Health and Human Services, in an announcement on July 26, had said it would accept comments on its proposal through September 26, before moving to the next stage of writing the regulations. The department announced on Wednesday that it would extend the comment period to October 26.

Groups including the AAU, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities had asked for the extra time. The original 60-day comment period was “insufficient to provide substantive input on the extensive and detailed questions and proposals,” the leaders of the AAU and APLU said in a joint letter this month to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Separately, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues met this week in Washington to consider its own recommendations for human-subject protections. President Obama requested the commission study last November, after a researcher at Wellesley College, Susan M. Reverby, uncovered evidence that U.S. government scientists in the 1940s intentionally infected hundreds of people in Guatemala with gonorrhea and syphilis as part of a public-health research project. The commission’s final report is due next month.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Law & PolicyPolitical Influence & Activism
Paul Basken
Paul Basken was a government policy and science reporter with The Chronicle of Higher Education, where he won an annual National Press Club award for exclusives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Accessibility Statement
    Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin