CTSA Institution Responses to Proposed Common Rule Changes: Did They Get What They Wanted?

J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017 Apr;12(2):79-86. doi: 10.1177/1556264617698606. Epub 2017 Mar 21.

Abstract

In 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and 15 other federal departments and agencies proposed revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the departments sought to strengthen, modernize, and make more effective human subjects regulations while reducing administrative burden, delay, and ambiguity. We reviewed public comments from National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutions on key provisions of the NPRM to understand how the proposed changed were received at research-intensive institutions. CTSA institutions responding to the proposed rule were predominantly opposed to the major proposals, including proposed changes to the treatment of de-identified biospecimens, demonstrating a lack of support from academic medical centers. In January 2017, a Final Rule was issued. We compare the Final Rule to what was proposed.

Keywords: CTSA; Common Rule; NPRM; biospecimens; informed consent; institutional review board.

MeSH terms

  • Academies and Institutes*
  • Biological Specimen Banks / ethics*
  • Biological Specimen Banks / legislation & jurisprudence
  • Biomedical Research / ethics*
  • Biomedical Research / legislation & jurisprudence
  • Financing, Government
  • Government Agencies*
  • Human Experimentation / ethics*
  • Human Experimentation / legislation & jurisprudence
  • Humans
  • National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
  • Public Policy / legislation & jurisprudence*
  • United States