Search

The article discusses the retraction of a controversial study on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) due to concerns about informed consent. Topics include the survey's methodology and biased participant selection, criticism of the study's conclusions and the ethical implications of its publication without institutional review board approval.

Professors essentially apply to join a study that's already in progress, avoiding the institutional-review-board process that is described as "onerous." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

10 THE ABOLITIONIST ISSUE 33 COLUMNS Resistance By Cory Lambing From the cement and steel, real thoughts of resistance manifest, born and bred in the minds of those who have been infested by poverty, "crime", racism and addiction. Prisoners across the country have been used in medical trials, and California prisoners are no exception. There is an ongoing class-action lawsuit on behalf of about 300 prisoners for physical harm caused by the experiments. Doctors in charge of the studies said they conducted them to deepen medical knowledge, citing experimentation on United States prisoners as a model for their work. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the Derek Coppinger, the newly appointed chief executive of Raptor Scientific LLC, is pursuing an aggressive rollup strategy of small to midsize companies to consolidate the testing and measurement sector of the aerospace and defense industry for his recently formed company's owners, Newport Beach-based investment firm L Squared Capital Partners; and mentions that fragmented aerospace and measurement market is ripe for consolidation and presents an opportunity for growth.

The article focuses on the Anaheim's Biophotas Inc., a leading light in Orange County's growing aesthetics industry, continues to tackle new markets with its existing Celluma product line. It mentions the company went on to raise a 3.2 million dollar Series A round over the next three years from high net-worth individuals and two family offices; and prepared to return a significant amount of capital raised back to its shareholders this year.

Institutional review boards, which act as checks on research that involves human subjects, don't come free. And now the cost might be passed on to researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the challenges of researching on children's food choices to improve their diet, and talks of issues for nutrition research include approval from Institutional Review Board (IRB) and finance, and discrepancy in the work done by Brian Wansink, director Cornell Food & Brand.

The article discusses the U.S. federal governments decision to allow universities to deregulate portions of research in the social sciences, law, and the humanities and no longer require administrative oversight of federally funded human-subject research. It notes that prior to this reform, policies limited the scope of institutional review board (IRB) management.

The article discusses U.S. academic researchers' efforts to protect their study data electronically from malicious parties such as hackers. Topics addressed institutional review boards' (IRB) general lack of information technology (IT) expertise, IRBs' assumption that researchers were computer security-savvy, and the appearance of computer scientists on some IRBs. Also mentioned are policy changes toward greater data security implemented by schools such as the University of North Carolina.

The article discusses a delay in rules for research on human subjects from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Topics include the application of institutional review board (IRB) approval to oral history research, modifications to consent forms by the HHS's Office for Human Research Protections, and the impacts of rules on the outcomes of research.

The article discusses ethical aspects of citizen science on topics including the failure of biomedical firm uBiome to undergo a review of their human microbiome citizen-science project by an institutional review board (IRB), bioethicist Effy Vayena, and challenges facing citizen ethicists.

Companies typically die slow, lingering deaths, the victims of changing technologies or tectonic shifts in global trade. But it is possible to kill a company really fast. Consider the case of Coast Institutional Review Board. Until recently, Coast was doing a banner business, getting paid by makers of drugs and medical devices to oversee human studies involving their products. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article reports on the decision of Coast IRB LLC of Colorado Springs, Colorado to stop many of its review operations at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is a requirement for companies and medical institutions to have an independent institutional review board (IRB) give approvals when they experiment on human subjects. According to the FDA, the stoppage could affect 300 trials involving 3,000 researchers. Leslie Ball of the FDA cited the reason of the agency for asking Coast to stop some aspects of its reviews.

The article looks at U.S. federal regulation of the use of human subjects in research. According to the author, low-risk research rarely involves the type of harm that makes it necessary to limit the freedom of scientists. Furthermore, the author states, the onerous regulations on low-risk research are causing more harm to society than those posed by the research itself. The author suggests that in the instances when low-risk research could cause harm, other methods, such as better education and training for researchers, are more sensible than overly restrictive regulations. The article discusses bioethics, institutional review boards, and a report from the American Association of University Professors.

The article reports that the U.S. institutional review boards related to medicine are being criticized for their expanded roles. The faculty and graduate students across the country are complaining that these ethics panels are curtailing academic freedom. They have also alleged that the panels are interfering with research in subjects like history and English, which pose no danger to anyone. The author elaborates on the concerned report from the American association of University Professors.

The article looks at a study published by "The New England Journal of Medicine," which found that many members of institutional review boards (IRB) did not regularly disclose their own financial conflicts of interest in proposed research on human subjects that they evaluated, and some voted on such projects, in apparent violation of federal rules. The authors of the study state that the findings suggest a need for academic institutions to work harder to educate members of the review boards about rules for disclosing and handling conflicts of interest. According to the article, many IRB members are drawn from the ranks of academic clinical researchers who receive funds from manufacturers of drugs and medical devices.

The article reports that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced last week that it would not regulate IRB shopping, a practice in which sponsors of clinical trials choose to submit proposed research to institutional review boards that they believe will approve it. Federal rules make the IRB responsible for protecting the safety and welfare of volunteers in biomedical and behavioral research regulated by the FDA or financed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Offers views on the application of human-subject protections to scholarly research in the U.S. Caution of universities about approving research involving human subjects; Rules and processes protecting human subjects; Call of scholars for changes to the institutional-review system that would exclude research from oversight unless it posed a risk of physical harm.

Discusses the work of institutional review boards (IRB) to protect human volunteers in medical experiments. Idea that IRB have failed to protect volunteers in medical experiments; Way that IRB are cracking down on experiments in social sciences; Idea that social scientists are finding it difficult to do research.