Certificates of Confidentiality: Protecting Human Subject Research Data in Law and Practice.

The federal Certificate of Confidentiality plays an important role in research on sensitive topics by authorizing researchers to refuse to disclose identifiable research data in response to subpoenas in any legal setting. However, there is little known about how effective Certificates are in practice. This article draws on our legal and empirical research on this topic to fill this information gap. It includes a description of the purpose of Certificates, their legislative and regulatory history, and a summary of the few reported and unreported cases that have dealt with Certificates. In addition, we outline other statutory confidentiality protections, compare them to the Certificate's protections, and analyze some of the vulnerabilities of a Certificate's protections. This analysis allows us to make specific recommendations for strengthening the protections afforded to research data.

The translational potential of research on the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics.

Federally funded research on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genomics includes a programmatic charge to consider policy-relevant questions and to communicate findings in venues that help inform the policy-making process. In addressing this goal, investigators must consider the range of policies that are relevant to human genetics; how foundational research in bioethics, law, and the social sciences might inform those policies; and the potential professional issues that this translational imperative raises for ELSI investigators. We review these questions in light of experiences from a consortium of federally funded Centers of Excellence in ELSI Research, and offer a set of policy recommendations for program design and evaluation of ELSI research. We conclude that it would be a mistake to require that ELSI research programs demonstrate a direct impact on science or health policy; however, ELSI researchers can take steps to increase the relevance of their work to policy makers. Similarly, funders of ELSI research who are concerned with facilitating policy development can help by building cross-disciplinary translational research capacities, and universities can take steps to make policy-relevant research more rewarding for scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and law.

Earthworms facilitate carbon sequestration through unequal amplification of carbon stabilization compared with mineralization.

A recent review concluded that earthworm presence increases CO2 emissions by 33% but does not affect soil organic carbon stocks. However, the findings are controversial and raise new questions. Here we hypothesize that neither an increase in CO2 emission nor in stabilized carbon would entirely reflect the earthworms' contribution to net carbon sequestration. We show how two widespread earthworm invaders affect net carbon sequestration through impacts on the balance of carbon mineralization and carbon stabilization. Earthworms accelerate carbon activation and induce unequal amplification of carbon stabilization compared with carbon mineralization, which generates an earthworm-mediated 'carbon trap'. We introduce the new concept of sequestration quotient to quantify the unequal processes. The patterns of CO2 emission and net carbon sequestration are predictable by comparing sequestration quotient values between treatments with and without earthworms. This study clarifies an ecological mechanism by which earthworms may regulate the terrestrial carbon sink.

Certificates of Confidentiality: Protecting Human Subject Research Data in Law and Practice.

Researchers often require and collect sensitive information about individuals to answer important scientific questions that impact individual health and well-being and the public health. Researchers recognize they have a duty to maintain the confidentiality of the data they collect and typically make promises, which are documented in the consent form. The legal interests of others, however, can threaten researchers' promises of confidentiality, if they seek access to the data through subpoena. Certificates of Confidentiality (Certificates), authorized by federal statute, are an important tool for protecting individually identifiable sensitive research data from compelled disclosure. However, questions persist in the research community about the strength of Certificate protections, and the evidence on which to judge the strength is scant. In this article, we address those questions through a careful examination of the legislation and regulations concerning Certificates and the reported and unreported cases we have identified through our legal research and interviews with legal counsel about their experiences with Certificates. We also analyze other statutes that protect research data to compare them to the Certificate's protections, and we review other legal strategies available for protecting research data. Based on our analysis, we conclude with recommendations for how to strengthen protection of sensitive research data.

Certificates of confidentiality: legal counsels' experiences with and perspectives on legal demands for research data.

The certificate of confidentiality (Certificate) is an important tool for protecting identifiable, sensitive human subjects research data in the United States. However, little is known about the Certificate's effectiveness in protecting identifiable data. We interviewed 24 legal counsel representing U.S. research institutions about their experiences with legal demands for research data. Our respondents reported few, if any, legal demands over the course of their tenure, but two-thirds had experience with legal demands for data protected by a Certificate. They reported such demands often were resolved without disclosure of identifiable research data, typically without court intervention. While our respondents reported similar success protecting identifiable data in court, they often did not rely on the Certificate to do so.

Institutional review boards' use and understanding of certificates of confidentiality.

Certificates of Confidentiality, issued by agencies of the U.S. government, are regarded as an important tool for meeting ethical and legal obligations to safeguard research participants' privacy and confidentiality. By shielding against forced disclosure of identifying data, Certificates are intended to facilitate research on sensitive topics critical to the public's health. Although Certificates are potentially applicable to an extensive array of research, their full legal effect is unclear, and little is known about stakeholders' views of the protections they provide. To begin addressing this challenge, we conducted a national survey of institutional review board (IRB) chairs, followed by telephone interviews with selected chairs, to learn more about their familiarity with and opinions about Certificates; their institutions' use of Certificates; policies and practices concerning when Certificates are required or recommended; and the role Certificates play in assessments of research risk. Overall, our results suggest uncertainty about Certificates among IRB chairs. On most objective knowledge questions, most respondents chose the incorrect answer or 'unsure'. Among chairs who reported more familiarity with Certificates, composite opinion scores calculated based on five survey questions were evenly distributed among positive, neutral/middle, and negative views. Further, respondents expressed a variety of ideas about the appropriate use of Certificates, what they are intended to protect, and their effect on research risk. Nevertheless, chairs who participated in our study commonly viewed Certificates as a potentially valuable tool, frequently describing them as an 'extra layer' of protection. These findings lead to several practical observations concerning the need for more stakeholder education about Certificates, consideration of Certificates for a broader range of studies, the importance of remaining vigilant and using all tools available to protect participants' confidentiality, and the need for further empirical investigation of Certificates' effect on researchers and research participants.

A national survey of provisions in clinical-trial agreements between medical schools and industry sponsors.

BACKGROUND: Concerned about threats to the integrity of clinical trials in a research environment increasingly controlled by private interests, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has issued revised guidelines for investigators' participation in the study design, access to data, and control over publication. It is unclear whether research conducted at academic institutions adheres to these new standards. METHODS: From November 2001 through January 2002, we interviewed officials at U.S. medical schools about provisions in their institutions' agreements with industry sponsors of multicenter clinical trials. A subgroup of the respondents were also asked about coordinating-center agreements for such trials. RESULTS: Of the 122 medical schools that are members of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 108 participated in the survey. The median number of site-level agreements executed per institution in the previous year was 103 (interquartile range, 50 to 210). Scores for compliance with a wide range of provisions--from ensuring that authors of reports on multicenter trials have access to all trial data (1 percent [interquartile range, 0 to 21]) to addressing the plan for data collection and monitoring (10 percent [interquartile range, 1 to 50])--demonstrated limited adherence to the standards embodied in the new ICMJE guidelines. Scores for coordinating-center agreements were somewhat higher for most survey items. CONCLUSIONS: Academic institutions routinely engage in industry-sponsored research that fails to adhere to ICMJE guidelines regarding trial design, access to data, and publication rights. Our findings suggest that a reevaluation of the process of contracting for clinical research is urgently needed.