横跨49度纬线的研究伦理:加拿大研究机构试行“同等保护”的潜在价值。

Health law review Pub Date : 2005-01-01
James V Lavery, Michael McDonald, Eric M Meslin
{"title":"横跨49度纬线的研究伦理:加拿大研究机构试行“同等保护”的潜在价值。","authors":"James V Lavery,&nbsp;Michael McDonald,&nbsp;Eric M Meslin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Canada and the United States share the world's largest trade partnership and an increasing concern about divergent regulatory approaches to common industries. Canadian research institutes receive more research funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health than any other country, much of it to fund multi-centre and collaborative research between the two countries. Because of these close economic and research ties, and the extensive similarities between the two countries in the review and oversight of ethics in human subjects research, we propose that Canada would be an ideal country for a pilot-test of the feasibility of \"equivalent protections,\" a U.S. regulation that permits comparison of protections for human subjects between institutions in the two countries. The \"equivalent protections\" has been advocated by various bodies in the United States as a potentially beneficial mechanism for improving oversight of foreign trials. As well, we argue that \"equivalent protections\" could prove to be valuable for Canada in five specific ways: (1) by potentially reducing administrative burden on Canadian research institutions administering U.S. federal research funding; (2) by creating symbolic value of an explicit recognition by the United States that procedures normally followed for the protection of human subjects in Canadian research institutions are at least equivalent to those provided by the U.S. regulations; (3) by lowering the opportunity cost of investing in research in Canada; (4) by affording Canada an opportunity to enhance its leadership role in international research by offering an alternative to the U.S. regulatory model for the protection of human subjects; and (5) by providing a model for how the idea of equivalent protections might be addressed for research funded by Canadian agencies but conducted in other countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":87182,"journal":{"name":"Health law review","volume":"13 2-3","pages":"86-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research ethics across the 49th parallel: the potential value of pilot testing \\\"equivalent protections\\\" in Canadian research institutions.\",\"authors\":\"James V Lavery,&nbsp;Michael McDonald,&nbsp;Eric M Meslin\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Canada and the United States share the world's largest trade partnership and an increasing concern about divergent regulatory approaches to common industries. Canadian research institutes receive more research funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health than any other country, much of it to fund multi-centre and collaborative research between the two countries. Because of these close economic and research ties, and the extensive similarities between the two countries in the review and oversight of ethics in human subjects research, we propose that Canada would be an ideal country for a pilot-test of the feasibility of \\\"equivalent protections,\\\" a U.S. regulation that permits comparison of protections for human subjects between institutions in the two countries. The \\\"equivalent protections\\\" has been advocated by various bodies in the United States as a potentially beneficial mechanism for improving oversight of foreign trials. As well, we argue that \\\"equivalent protections\\\" could prove to be valuable for Canada in five specific ways: (1) by potentially reducing administrative burden on Canadian research institutions administering U.S. federal research funding; (2) by creating symbolic value of an explicit recognition by the United States that procedures normally followed for the protection of human subjects in Canadian research institutions are at least equivalent to those provided by the U.S. regulations; (3) by lowering the opportunity cost of investing in research in Canada; (4) by affording Canada an opportunity to enhance its leadership role in international research by offering an alternative to the U.S. regulatory model for the protection of human subjects; and (5) by providing a model for how the idea of equivalent protections might be addressed for research funded by Canadian agencies but conducted in other countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87182,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health law review\",\"volume\":\"13 2-3\",\"pages\":\"86-96\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

加拿大和美国拥有世界上最大的贸易伙伴关系,两国对共同行业不同的监管方式日益感到担忧。加拿大的研究机构从美国国立卫生研究院获得的研究经费比其他任何国家都多,其中大部分用于资助两国之间的多中心和合作研究。由于这些密切的经济和研究联系,以及两国在审查和监督人类受试者研究伦理方面的广泛相似之处,我们建议加拿大将是一个理想的国家,可以对“等效保护”的可行性进行试点测试,这是一项美国法规,允许比较两国机构对人类受试者的保护。美国的许多机构都提倡“同等保护”,认为这是一种潜在的有益机制,可以改善对外国审判的监督。同样,我们认为,“同等保护”可以在五个具体方面证明对加拿大有价值:(1)通过潜在地减轻管理美国联邦研究经费的加拿大研究机构的行政负担;(2)通过创造美国明确承认的象征价值,即加拿大研究机构通常遵循的保护人类受试者的程序至少相当于美国法规所规定的程序;(3)降低在加拿大投资研究的机会成本;(4)为加拿大提供一个机会,以加强其在国际研究中的领导作用,为保护人类受试者提供美国监管模式的替代方案;(5)为由加拿大机构资助但在其他国家进行的研究如何解决同等保护的问题提供一个模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Research ethics across the 49th parallel: the potential value of pilot testing "equivalent protections" in Canadian research institutions.

Canada and the United States share the world's largest trade partnership and an increasing concern about divergent regulatory approaches to common industries. Canadian research institutes receive more research funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health than any other country, much of it to fund multi-centre and collaborative research between the two countries. Because of these close economic and research ties, and the extensive similarities between the two countries in the review and oversight of ethics in human subjects research, we propose that Canada would be an ideal country for a pilot-test of the feasibility of "equivalent protections," a U.S. regulation that permits comparison of protections for human subjects between institutions in the two countries. The "equivalent protections" has been advocated by various bodies in the United States as a potentially beneficial mechanism for improving oversight of foreign trials. As well, we argue that "equivalent protections" could prove to be valuable for Canada in five specific ways: (1) by potentially reducing administrative burden on Canadian research institutions administering U.S. federal research funding; (2) by creating symbolic value of an explicit recognition by the United States that procedures normally followed for the protection of human subjects in Canadian research institutions are at least equivalent to those provided by the U.S. regulations; (3) by lowering the opportunity cost of investing in research in Canada; (4) by affording Canada an opportunity to enhance its leadership role in international research by offering an alternative to the U.S. regulatory model for the protection of human subjects; and (5) by providing a model for how the idea of equivalent protections might be addressed for research funded by Canadian agencies but conducted in other countries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信