Safeguards in Clinical Research

By Cross, Laura L. | THE JOURNAL RECORD, July 31, 2000 | Go to article overview

Safeguards in Clinical Research


Nearly every day we hear of a new wonder drug or medical treatment for an age-old problem. These new medicines and treatments have greatly enhanced our health and quality of life. Moreover, we stand at the threshold of research advances that to many of us are frankly inconceivable. However, recent reports of major research projects being suspended give reason to question what safeguards are in place to protect from harm those who are so desperate for a cure, they will try anything.

In the United States, clinical research is under not one or two but three different legislated review processes. This triple- review process has evolved over the last 40 years as a check and balance of protections.

First, federal law and regulation require all research in the United States to be under the supervision of a local review board commonly called an institutional review board, or IRB. In addition, there are two separate and distinct federal agencies, which share responsibility for research and IRB oversight: the Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) and the Food and Drug Administration. While the OPRR's main tool for oversight has been a documentation process, on-site visits are also used. The FDA's main mechanism for local board oversight is the inspection process. The FDA also inspects drug companies, which sponsor much of the research and the clinical research investigators, who are often practicing physicians.

Local board review

The responsibilities of local boards fall into two main categories: initial review and continuing review. The initial review of all human research focuses primarily on the research protocol, the informed consent form to be signed by participants and any advertisements to be used in recruiting participants. In carrying out this review, the boards seek focus in four major areas.

First, they look to see that any risks that participants may incur are warranted in relation to the anticipated benefits of the study treatment. Then they look to see if the informed consent clearly conveys the risks and the true nature of the research. They also look to see that advertisements are not misleading. Finally, they check to see that the selection of participants is equitable and justified. The most in-depth focus of this review is on the informed consent document as it is the vehicle for providing accurate understandable information to potential research participants.

The continuing review process requires reviews at regular intervals throughout the study. In addition to this continuing review, changes in the research procedures and reports of unexpected adverse reactions are received periodically and reviewed to ensure that the anticipated benefits continue to outweigh the risks associated with the treatment being studied.

It is estimated that there are 3,000 to 5,000 local review boards across the country. They are most commonly associated with hospitals and academic centers. Boards also exist in managed care organizations and government agencies (such as the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and state governments). In addition, there are for-profit review boards. These boards are totally independent of the institutions and clinics in which the research takes place.

Federal regulations require that boards have at least five members with varying backgrounds. At least one member must have primarily scientific interests, one must have primarily nonscientific interests, and one must be otherwise unaffiliated with the institution in which the IRB resides. A quorum for approval of any study must include at least one member whose interests are primarily nonscientific. Nonscientific and unaffiliated members play a crucial role in assuring protections necessary for participant understanding and informed consent.

Government oversight

While local review is the mainstay of public protection, governmental oversight is deemed necessary to prevent scientific fervor from running roughshod over local board efforts to protect vulnerable participants. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)


1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Cited article

Safeguards in Clinical Research


Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.