![Page 1: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
2012 VA IRB Chair MeetingTuesday, August 14, 2012
Remembering Ethics -- When Legal & Ethical Constraints Diverge in Human Subjects Protection
Valerie H. Bonham Senior AttorneyOffice of the General CounselU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
![Page 2: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2Objectives
• Recognize the interplay of bioethics and law and the reasons why both need to be considered in protecting research subjects.
• Understand U.S. legal framework for protecting human research subjects – domestically and internationally.
• Discuss 3 example cases, old and new, where legal standard may be met, but ethics clearly fell short.
![Page 3: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3Bioethics & Law – Overlap
• Bioethics principles, e.g., respect for persons and individual autonomy, are often reflected in law.– Example: Informed consent, in U.S. law:
– 21 U.S.C. 355 (requiring informed consent in certain FDA-regulated research since 1962)
– 42 U.S.C. 218 (requiring informed consent in HHS-funded research since 1974)
– 45 CFR Part 46.116 (Common Rule)– 21 CFR Part 50 (FDA equivalent)
– See, also, requirements to minimize risk & avoid unnecessary harms, e.g., in U.S. Common Rule, 45 CFR Part 46.111 (Criteria for IRB review)
![Page 4: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4Bioethics & Law – What’s the difference?
Over-simply --• Both are concerned with distinguishing what is right from
what is wrong. – Set standards & boundaries to guide action.
• Bioethics: Arises from moral philosophy and religious traditions; violators face moral sanction.
• Law: Arises from authority of the government; violators face civil & sometimes criminal penalties.
• Sometimes divergent actions, e.g.,– Access to care & compensation for research injuries.
• Law reaches broader issues, e.g., peer review for U.S. grants.
![Page 5: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
1. HHS Regulations (“the Common Rule”), 45 C.F.R. Part 46
-- Apply directly to international research when U.S. funded.
2. FDA Regulations, 21 CFR Parts 50, 56, 312, 812.-- Apply to international research when
FDA approval sought.
** Collectively, these extend to most, but not all research in the United States and some research internationally.
U.S. Legal Framework – Main Sources
![Page 6: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6U.S. Legal Framework
SOURCE: U.S. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION FOR THE STUDY OF ETHICAL ISSUES, MORAL SCIENCE (2011)
![Page 7: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7U.S. FUNDING –LOCATIONSOURCE: U.S. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION FOR THE STUDY OF ETHICAL ISSUES, MORAL SCIENCE (2011)
![Page 8: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8Informed Consent – Bioethics & Law
• Largely overlap, but….• Sometimes law may permit what bioethics might
reject, including, case-by-case: – Residual use of “de-identified” samples
• 45 CFR 46 is limited to research use of data with “identifiable private information” or obtained through intervention or interaction with a living individual; and
• “Identifiability” of genetic samples and scope of consent presents recurring challenges.
![Page 9: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9Compliance
• For many, complying with law is marker for satisfying ethical principles
• U.S. Government regulatory compliance efforts are broad:– OHRP, FDA: myriad guidance documents,
enforcement programs, etc.– NIH: numerous policies, grant statements,
enforcement, withhold funding, etc.
• We focus on legal compliance… some times to our detriment.
![Page 10: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10What is Legal is Not Always Ethical
Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital (1963)• Patients injected with live cancer cells;• Patients deceived; and• No signed or documented consent.
– Lead investigators suspended following administrative review (amd law suit for records), but one elected vice-president of AACR shortly after.
![Page 11: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical
and Behavioral Research• Congressional mandate to:
– Identify ethical principles underlying human subjects research
– Develop guidelines to be followed• The Belmont Report (1979)
– Enduring framework for medical research ethics today
U.S. Ethics Framework – Some Sources
![Page 12: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12The Guatemala Experiments
![Page 13: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
“The President reaffirmed the United States’ unwavering commitment to ensure that all human medical studies conducted today meet exacting U.S. and
international legal and ethical standards. ”October 1, 2010
National Reaction – 2010
![Page 14: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14International Reaction – 2010
![Page 15: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15Investigation Timeline
Timeline• June 2003 Reverby discovers Dr. Cutler records
at University of Pittsburgh.• May 2010 Reverby notifies Dr. David Sencer,
former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Summer 2010 U.S. recovers Cutler documents and undertakes preliminary review.
• October 2010 Public release; President and Secretaries, Sebelius and Clinton, apologize; Secretaries announce independent Investigation.
• November 2010 President charges Commission.
• January 2011 Commission begins investigation.
• September 2011 Commission issues historical report.
![Page 16: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
• Reviewed over 125,000 pages of original records and 550 published documents– Over 10,000 pages from Cutler archives– Searches conducted in archives across US
• Consulted independent JHU syphilologist with 30+ years experience.
• Prepared subject database with 1,074,196 entries.
Investigation Methods
![Page 17: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17Research Design
• Original goal: to test the orvus-mapharsen prophylaxis wash as a prophylaxis for syphilis in prisoners exposed to infected commercial sex workers.
• Intentional exposure studies conducted 1946-1948 with:– commercial sex workers – prisoners– Guatemalan soldiers, and – psychiatric hospital patients.
• Exposure methods: sexual intercourse, skin contact, direct injection, scarification/abrasion, and cisternal punctures.
![Page 18: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18Research Design, cont’d.
• Serology studies conducted 1946-1953 with– most subjects from intentional exposure studies, – children from orphanage and school, – leprosarium patients, and – U.S. Air Force Personnel
• Serology methods: blood draws, lumbar punctures, and cisternal punctures.
![Page 19: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19Research Design, cont’d.
• No record of any of the subjects giving consent. – Some subjects, including those with mental illness and
children, did not have the capacity to consent. – Evidence shows that researchers intentionally deceived
some subjects about the nature of the study and what was being done to them.
![Page 20: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20Subject Specific Data
• Total Subject numbers: 5540
1. Intentional exposure: 1308 678 of whom show some record of
treatment
2. Diagnostic testing: 5128820 of whom show some
record of treatment
![Page 21: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21Subject Age Ranges
• Subject age ranges: 1. Intentional exposure: 10 to 72 years.• Mean: 25• Mode: 20• Median: 22
2. Diagnostic testing: 1 to 72 years.
![Page 22: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22Subject & Population SummarySOURCE: U.S. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION FOR THE STUDY OF ETHICAL ISSUES, ETHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (2011)
![Page 23: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23SUBJECT PROFILE : BERTASOURCE: U.S. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION FOR THE STUDY OF ETHICAL ISSUES, ETHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (2011)
![Page 24: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24FEMALE PSYCHIATRIC PATIENT LIST
![Page 25: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT PROTOCOL
![Page 26: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26SUBJECT SEROLOGY RESULTS
![Page 27: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27SUBJECT CLINICAL NOTECARD
![Page 28: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28Institutional Support
• Public Health Service Venereal Disease Division– Funded grant, supplied staff, design, and supplies
• Now part of the CDC • NIH
– Issued 2-year grant to Pan American Sanitary Bureau (PASB)• Now the Pan American Health Organization
• PASB – Built laboratory, negotiated agreements with the Guatemalan
government giving authority to work with Guatemalan officials and institutions, paid for staff and supplies
• Government of Guatemala– Supplied staff, facilities, and encouraged work
![Page 29: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29Approval & Oversight
• Approved by:– NIH Syphilis Study Section (meeting one)– National Advisory Health Council– Surgeon General Thomas Parran
• Supervision and site visits from:– Dr. John Heller, Chief, Venereal Disease
Division– Dr. John Mahoney, Director, VDRL– Dr. RC Arnold, Asst. Director, VDRL– Dr. Cassius Van Slyke, Chief, Research
Grants Office– Dr. Fred Soper, Director of PASB
![Page 30: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
• PHS/PASB Team– Dr. John Cutler, Senior Surgeon, PHS– Dr. Sasha Levitan, Senior Surgeon, PHS– Dr. Lee Harlow, Asst. Surgeon, PHS
• Guatemala Team– Dr. Luis Galich, Director, Ministry of Public Health– Dr. Juan Funes, Chief, Venereal Disease Section, Ministry of
Public Health– Dr. Hector Aragon, Director, National Orphanage of Guatemala– Dr. Roberto Robles Chincilla, Director of Medical Services,
Penitentiary– Dr. Carlos Salvado, Director, National Psychiatric Hospital– Dr. Carlos Tejeda, Chief of the Army Medical Department
In Guatemala
![Page 31: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31PCSBI’s Ethical Analysis
• Faulty Scientific Design:– The experiments were not carefully designed by either current or
contemporaneous understandings of appropriate scientific methods: • modes of transmission were used that supervisors warned
against, • data was altered or excised before inclusion in summary
reports, and• not all of the subjects exposed to STDs were treated.
• Failure to Obtain Consent:– In 1943-1944, many of the same researchers carefully considered
and adopted strict requirements for individual consent and voluntariness in similar gonorrhea research at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. Evidence showed they ignored this standard, and in frequently sought to deceive subjects and outside observers.
![Page 32: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32International Reaction – 2011
![Page 33: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33What is Legal is Not Always Ethical, II
Havasupai Indians (2000s)• 1990 diabetes study collecting over
200 blood samples for “the causes of behavioral/medical disorders” [Diabetes]
• Samples used thereafter for myriad secondary uses, including evolutionary genetics challenging tribe’s cultural beliefs
• Tribe sued Arizona State University, which settled in 2010 with return of samples, apology and money damages.
![Page 34: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34What’s wrong?
• Violation of respect for human dignity and individual ethical rights/interests
• Violation of law (sometimes)• Real and potential costs to research:
– Enrollment declines.– Public trust in the research enterprise
declines.– Funding declines.– Advance of science and treatment slows.
![Page 35: 2012 VA IRB Chair Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2012](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062521/568168a2550346895ddf3982/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35Summary – what do we do now?
• Bioethics and law Remember both • In design, funding, approval and monitoring
– IRBs play a critical part.• Responsible stewardship & Public Trust
LawBioethics