Too Many Rationales, Not Enough Reason: A Call to Examine the Goals of Including Lay Members on Institutional Review Boards.

Every major U.S. commission appointed to review Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) as well as numerous reports and scholarly articles have recommended increasing the number of lay (nonscientist and unaffiliated) members on IRBs. Meanwhile, qualitative studies have shown that lay IRB members experience confusion about their roles, including ambiguity whether their roles are different from other members of the board. Without articulating the unique reasons why unaffiliated and nonscientist members are needed, IRBs have little guidance on how to recruit and train these members, and how many should be at the table. By looking back through the history of IRB regulations, policies, and commentaries we can articulate unique contributions these members can make. Only with these contributions in mind can we make arguments for how to best achieve them and make the case that increasing their numbers is necessary.

Extending the surrogacy analogy: applying the advance directive model to biobanks.

Biobank donors and biobank governance face a conceptual challenge akin to clinical patients and their designated surrogate decision-makers, the necessity of making decisions and policies now that must be implemented under future unknown circumstances. We propose that biobanks take advantage of this parallel to learn lessons from the historical trajectory of advance directives and develop models analogous to current 'best practice' advance directives such as Values Histories and TheFive Wishes. We suggest how such models could improve biobanks' engagement both with communities and with individual donors by being more honest about the limits of current disclosure and eliciting information to ensure the protection of donor interests more robustly through time than current 'informed consent' processes in biobanking.

Return of individual genetic results in a high-risk sample: enthusiasm and positive behavioral change.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to examine participant responses to disclosure of genetic results in a minority population at high risk for depression and anxiety. METHODS: Eighty-two subjects in a genetic study of nicotine dependence were offered personalized genetic results. All were nicotine-dependent and 64% self-identified as African American. Pathway Genomics was used to evaluate genetic risks for five complex diseases. Participants returned 4-8 weeks after enrollment for in-person genetic counseling interviews and evaluation of baseline measures. A telephone follow-up was performed 4-8 weeks later to assess responses to results. RESULTS: Fifty of the 82 subjects (61%) were interested in receiving genetic results. These participants had multiple risk factors, including high baseline measures of depression (66%) and anxiety (32%), as well as low rates of employment (46%), adequate health literacy (46%), and health insurance (45%). Pathway Genomics reported "increased risk" for at least one disease in 77% of subjects. Ninety-five percent of participants reported that they appreciated the genetic results, and receiving these results was not associated with changes in symptoms of depression or anxiety. Furthermore, after return of genetic results, smoking cessation attempts increased (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Even in an underserved population at high risk for adverse psychological reactions, subjects responded positively to personalized genetic results.

Piloting a nationally disseminated, interactive human subjects protection program for community partners: design, content, and evaluation.

Funders, institutions, and research organizations are increasingly recognizing the need for human subjects protections training programs for those engaged in academic research. Current programs tend to be online and directed toward an audience of academic researchers. Research teams now include many nonacademic members, such as community partners, who are less likely to respond to either the method or the content of current online trainings. A team at the CTSA-supported Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research at the University of Michigan developed a pilot human subjects protection training program for community partners that is both locally implemented and adaptable to local contexts, yet nationally consistent and deliverable from a central administrative source. Here, the developers and the analysts of this program discuss its development, its content, and the results of its evaluation.

Piloting a nationally disseminated, interactive human subjects protection program for community partners: unexpected lessons learned from the field.

Funders, institutions, and research organizations are increasingly recognizing the need for human subjects protections training programs for those engaged in academic research. Current programs tend to be online and directed toward an audience of academic researchers. Research teams now include many nonacademic members, such as community partners, who are less likely to respond to either the method or the content of current online trainings. A team at the CTSA-supported Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research at the University of Michigan developed a pilot human subjects protection training program for community partners that is both locally implemented and adaptable to local contexts, yet nationally consistent and deliverable from a central administrative source. Here, the developers of the program and the collaborators who participated in the pilot across the United States describe 10 important lessons learned that align with four major themes: The distribution of the program, the implementation of the program, the involvement of community engagement in the program, and finally lessons regarding the content of the program. These lessons are relevant to anyone who anticipates developing or improving a training program that is developed in a central location and intended for local implementation.

Protecting and respecting the vulnerable: existing regulations or further protections?

Scholars and policymakers continue to struggle over the meaning of the word "vulnerable" in the context of research ethics. One major reason for the stymied discussions regarding vulnerable populations is that there is no clear distinction between accounts of research vulnerabilities that exist for certain populations and discussions of research vulnerabilities that require special regulations in the context of research ethics policies. I suggest an analytic process by which to ascertain whether particular vulnerable populations should be contenders for additional regulatory protections. I apply this process to two vulnerable populations: the cognitively vulnerable and the economically vulnerable. I conclude that a subset of the cognitively vulnerable require extra protections while the economically vulnerable should be protected by implementing existing regulations more appropriately and rigorously. Unless or until the informed consent process is more adequately implemented and the distributive justice requirement of the Belmont Report is emphasized and operationalized, the economically disadvantaged will remain particularly vulnerable to the harm of exploitation in research.

Research ethics education for community-engaged research: a review and research agenda.

Community engagement is increasingly becoming an integral part of research. "Community-engaged research" (CEnR) introduces new stakeholders as well as unique challenges to the protection of participants and the integrity of the research process. We--a group of representatives of CTSA-funded institutions and others who share expertise in research ethics and CEnR--have identified gaps in the literature regarding (1) ethical issues unique to CEnR; (2) the particular instructional needs of academic investigators, community research partners, and IRB members; and (3) best practices for teaching research ethics. This paper presents what we know, as well as what we still need to learn, in order to develop quality research ethics educational materials tailored to the full range of stakeholder groups in CEnR.

Developing community partner training: regulations and relationships.

While funders increasingly support research that partners with communities, community partners still must submit to a regulatory oversight structure that does not reflect their unique research ethics challenges and needs. In recognition of the importance of collaborative research endeavors, the authors engaged in a process of reconnaissance and negotiations with local community partners and research ethics boards (REBs) at the University of Michigan to begin to address the mismatch between regulatory demands and community-based research realities. This preliminary process yielded both changes in the REB oversight structure and training required of community partnered research. While the ultimate impact of these changes remains to be seen, the process itself yielded insights and materials of use to both our local REBs, and hopefully those at other institutions as well. This article will present those insights and provide links to those materials.