Columbia University IRB
IRB 101
July 14, 2005
George Gasparis, Executive Director, CU IRB
Asst. V.P. and Sr. Asst. Dean for Research Ethics
July 14, 2005 Page 2
Objectives
Today’s session will provide information on:
• History and Trends in Human Research Ethics and Regulations
• Introduction to Relevant Regulations
• Introduction to Operation of the CUMC IRB
• Understanding of IRB Review Criteria
• Submitting to the IRB Successfully
July 14, 2005 Page 3
Well Known Major Cases Involving Unethical Research
Nazi Experimentation in
Concentration Camps
World War II
1939-44
July 14, 2005 Page 4
THE NUREMBERG CODE
Became the first widely recognized ethical code of conduct for human research
First Tenet - The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
[from Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946–April 1949. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949–1953.]
July 14, 2005 Page 5
Nuremberg Code and Voluntary Consent (Continued)
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
July 14, 2005 Page 6
Not Well Publicized Ethical Tragedies
Chemical and Biological warfare experimentation in Asia – 1920s
-Documented by Dr. Sheldon Harris’ book: “Ethics of Biological Warfare Research”
-The Big Three: Ishii Shiro, Katano Masaji, and Wakamatsu Ywiro conducted biological warfare (bw) and chemical warfare (cw) research on thousands of subjects in China, Indonesia, New Guinea, and the Philippines (and possibly Korea).
-Ishii used a minimum of 10-12,000 subjects in Northern Mantsuria
July 14, 2005 Page 7
Not Well Publicized Ethical Tragedies (cont’d)
Chemical and Biological warfare experimentation in Asia – 1920s
-Research was done on slaves, prisoners, and citizens in dozens of chemical factories; Units 731 (headed by Ishii Shuro; and the
largest unit), Unit 100, and Unit 555 were the most famous.
-Research was also done on frostbite (by freezing subjects), gangrene, decompression (exploding subjects), cholera, dysentery, and virtually every known pathogen.
-About 250,000 people were killed in China alone.
July 14, 2005 Page 8
Not Well Publicized Ethical Tragedies (cont’d)
Chemical and Biological warfare experimentation in Asia – 1920s
-Subjects were referred to as “monkeys” or “marutas” (“logs”).
-American POWs were not tested at major centers, but were tested, including surgical excision of livers while alive.
-Every Japanese officer above Major and every Minister of Office, and the Imperial family knew of the experiments.
July 14, 2005 Page 9
Declaration of Helsinki, 1964
A more developed research code of conduct expanding to address clinical research
-Developed by the World Medical Assembly
Has undergone 8 revisions; the most recent in October 2000
July 14, 2005 Page 10
SUCH CONDUCT COULD NOT OCCUR IN THE U.S.,
RIGHT?
July 14, 2005 Page 11
Well Known Major Cases Involving Unethical Research in the U.S.
• Tuskegee Syphilis Study 1932-1972
• U.S. Radiation Experiments 1940s
• Willowbrook Study, NY 1956-1972
• Milgram Study, 1961
• Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital, 1963
• U.S. Army LSD studies/National Airport, 1963-4
• Stanford Prison Study, 1971
July 14, 2005 Page 12
Not Well Publicized Ethical Tragedies
Dr. Albert Kligman’s research at the Holmesburg prison – 1951 - 1970’s
-Documented by Dr. Allen Hornblum’s book: “Acres of Skin”
-Conducted chemotherapy, psychotropic drugs, and burn studies in Ohio
-Came to the prison in 1951 to study athlete’s foot; earlier he performed ringworm studies on retarded children.
-Total of 1,200-1,400 patients; 70-80% were in studies.
July 14, 2005 Page 13
Not Well Publicized Ethical Tragedies (cont’d)
Dr. Kligman’s research at the Holmesburg prison – 1951 - 1970’s
-One Example:-Dow Chemical sponsored study of diazanon
-he was paid $10,000/pt.
-increased dose 480x and left patients untreated
-no adverse events reported
-Other Examples:-Tested benzylates, atropine, and other psychotropic drugs
and chemical warfare agents
July 14, 2005 Page 14
Not Well Publicized Ethical Tragedies (cont’d)
Dr. Kligman’s research at the Holmesburg prison – 1951 - 1970’s
-In 25 years of studies, he only received a handful of lawsuits.
-Subjects were given waivers to sign (not consent); if subjects accepted a payment, they would waive rights to suit the investigator, University of Pennsylvania, or jail.
-At the time, Pennsylvania only had a 2 year statute of limitations from time one knew or should have known.
July 14, 2005 Page 15
Belmont Report, 1979
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioral Research
Basis of federal regulations regarding the protection of human subjects in research
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm
July 14, 2005 Page 16
Belmont Report, 1979
Applies to Social and Behavioral Research, as well as Biomedical Research
July 14, 2005 Page 17
Belmont Report, 1979
Articulates 3 Basic Ethical Principles:
Respect For Persons – Autonomy of the Individual
Beneficence – Risk Minimization
Justice – Burdens and Benefits of Research are Equitably Distributed
July 14, 2005 Page 18
Relevant Regulations
Federal Regulations:
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA, agency of HHS)
State Law:
New York State
July 14, 2005 Page 19
DEPARTMENT OFDEPARTMENT OFHEALTH & HUMAN HEALTH & HUMAN
SERVICESSERVICES
July 14, 2005 Page 20
Federal Regulations for the Protection of Subjects from Research Risks
45 CFR Part 46
1981
July 14, 2005 Page 21
45 CFR 46
Subpart A -- Basic Protections
Subpart B -- Pregnant Women, Neonates and Fetuses
Subpart C -- Prisoners
Subpart D -- Children
July 14, 2005 Page 22
45 CFR 46 – Subpart B Revised Subpart B issues on November 13, 2001
(effective date December 13, 2001)
Changes:
-introduces the term neonate; removes references to in-vitro fertilization;
-changes when paternal consent is required;
-strengthens the protection for the fetus by requiring that the parents are fully informed regarding the impact of the research on the fetus or neonate
July 14, 2005 Page 23
COMMON RULE
Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects
(45 CFR 46 Subpart A)
June 18, 1991
17 Departments and Agencies
July 14, 2005 Page 24
OHRP Website
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/
Check website for guidance on many different ethical and regulatory considerations.
July 14, 2005 Page 25
Other Relevant Federal Regulations
FDA Regulations:
Code of Federal Regulations
– Title 21, Parts 50, 56, 312, 812
• Applicable to research that involves testing of FDA regulated drugs, devices, biologics
• http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/
July 14, 2005 Page 26
Trends from 1970s - Present
1970 to mid 80s – Protectionists era
1985 - ?
July 14, 2005 Page 27
Trends from 1970s - Present
1970 to mid 80s – Protectionists era
1985 -1995 – Inclusion era:
-HIV epidemic
July 14, 2005 Page 28
Trends from 1970s - Present
1970 to mid 80s – Protectionists era
1985 -1995 – Inclusion era:
-HIV epidemic
-NIH and FDA Guidance for Inclusion of Women and Minorities in Research
July 14, 2005 Page 29
Trends from 1970s - Present
1970 to mid 80s: Protectionists era
1985 -1995: Inclusion era:
1995 - Present: Pendulum has swung back towards protectionism
July 14, 2005 Page 30
Well Known Major Noncompliance Cases
Continued incidence of unethical research
• Gulf War, 1991
OPRR/OHRP Shutdowns of Academic Medical Centers:
•Duke University
•Rush Presbyterian
•UCLA
•Univ. of California at Irvine
•University of Oklahoma
+ others
July 14, 2005 Page 31
Even More Recently and Closer to Home
Continued incidence of unethical research/noncompliance:
– Nicole Wan, Univ. of Rochester, 1996
– Jesse Gelsinger, Univ. of Penn., 1999
– Ellen Roche, Johns Hopkins, 2001
Ethical Research, but serious noncompliance:
– Columbia University Medical Center, 2005 – Current OHRP investigation
July 14, 2005 Page 32
What are the implications of noncompliance?
1. Affects the Public Trust in our research enterprise
-affects recruitment
-affects sponsors’ decisions to bring studies to an institution
2. Affects economics of the research enterprise locally
3. Creates significantly more work to ensure regulatory compliance
July 14, 2005 Page 33
IRBManagement of Noncompliance Cases
Total case load:
• 43 open cases involving 21 investigators
Sources of noncompliance cases:• 12 studies – Federal regulatory agencies or NIH
• 18 studies – CUMC IRB
• 8 studies – CUMC employees or staff
• 5 studies – External to CUMC
• 1 study – Self-reporting
• 15 closed cases involving 12 investigators
July 14, 2005 Page 34
All Human Research at Columbia University
Governed by Ethical Principles and the Requirements of HHS and FDA Regulations and
NY State Law
July 14, 2005 Page 35
Columbia University
Each performance site needs:
A. Assurance of Compliance Approved by OHRP (not required by FDA regulations)
B. Board Approval (i.e., IRB, REB, ethics cmte.)
C. Consent Obtained from Each Subject, Unless Waived by the IRB
July 14, 2005 Page 36
Columbia University Medical Center
Federalwide Assurance (FWA)
FWA00002636
-Applies the Belmont Report and
45 CFR 46 to all of its Human Subjects
Research Regardless of Support
July 14, 2005 Page 37
New York Presbyterian Hospital
Federalwide Assurance (FWA)
FWA00002635
-Applies the Belmont Report and
45 CFR 46 to all of its Human Subjects
Research Regardless of Support
July 14, 2005 Page 38
When does Human Subjects Research Need IRB Review?
Not Human Research (No IRB Review)
Oral History Evaluation
Polling QA
Gray Area
Human ResearchHuman ResearchIRB ReviewIRB Review
EthnographyEthnography Pedagogical Res.Pedagogical Res.
July 14, 2005 Page 39
Definition of Human Subject
A Living Individual about who an investigator (whether
professional or student) conducting research obtains:
1. Data through intervention or interaction with the individual,
or
2. Identifiable private information
July 14, 2005 Page 40
Types of IRB Review
1) Determination if human subjects research
2) Exempt
3) Expedited Review
4) Full Committee Review
July 14, 2005 Page 41
Definition of Research
-A systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge
July 14, 2005 Page 42
Types of IRB Review
1) Determination if human subjects research
2) Exempt
3) Expedited Review
4) Full Committee Review