欧盟对第536/2014号法规实施后临床试验监督机构监管的比较分析

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
I. D. M. Beriain, Theodora Chortara, Aliuska Duardo Sánchez, Oliver Feeney, H. Felzmann, E. F. Uzquiano, Elisa Lievevrouw, L. Marelli, Titti Mattsson, J. Herrmann, T. Minssen, Elisabetta Pulice, V. Raposo, Jürgen Robienski, S. Penasa, I. Hoyweghen
{"title":"欧盟对第536/2014号法规实施后临床试验监督机构监管的比较分析","authors":"I. D. M. Beriain, Theodora Chortara, Aliuska Duardo Sánchez, Oliver Feeney, H. Felzmann, E. F. Uzquiano, Elisa Lievevrouw, L. Marelli, Titti Mattsson, J. Herrmann, T. Minssen, Elisabetta Pulice, V. Raposo, Jürgen Robienski, S. Penasa, I. Hoyweghen","doi":"10.54648/euro2020046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The new EU regulation on clinical trials is intended to promote a greater level of harmonization of European Union rules in this area. However, it does not elaborate a common normative framework regarding the functioning of research ethics committees, leaving this responsibility to the Member States. This article offers a comparative analysis of the resulting regulatory situation. It demonstrates that this scenario is defined by considerable variability in the regulation of ethics monitoring between the EU Member States. We argue that this disparity should not necessarily be a negative factor for theoptimization of the trial supervision regime in the EU.Moreover, we consider that it may be a stimulus for the achievement of excellence in the performance of this monitoring task. On the other hand, we also highlight risks for the rights of participants if an adequate monitoring framework is not ensured. Under these circumstances, we observe how the EU faces a dilemma. On the one hand, it may promote a rigid uniformity between the regulation of ethics committees between Member States, but this might diminish the quality of their performance.On the other hand, it may opt for maintaining the current situation, but this might increase differences in the performance of the ethics committees between Member States, including the number trials performed by country. A third option would be to allow the competitive framework to remain for a set period of time, in order to learn from the best practices reached in individual Member States before finally harmonizing national legislative provisions on this basis.\nethics committees, clinical trials, Regulation on clinical trials, regulatory competition","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An EU Comparative Analysis of the Regulation of Clinical Trials Supervisory Bodies in the Aftermath of Regulation 536/2014\",\"authors\":\"I. D. M. Beriain, Theodora Chortara, Aliuska Duardo Sánchez, Oliver Feeney, H. Felzmann, E. F. Uzquiano, Elisa Lievevrouw, L. Marelli, Titti Mattsson, J. Herrmann, T. Minssen, Elisabetta Pulice, V. Raposo, Jürgen Robienski, S. Penasa, I. Hoyweghen\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/euro2020046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The new EU regulation on clinical trials is intended to promote a greater level of harmonization of European Union rules in this area. However, it does not elaborate a common normative framework regarding the functioning of research ethics committees, leaving this responsibility to the Member States. This article offers a comparative analysis of the resulting regulatory situation. It demonstrates that this scenario is defined by considerable variability in the regulation of ethics monitoring between the EU Member States. We argue that this disparity should not necessarily be a negative factor for theoptimization of the trial supervision regime in the EU.Moreover, we consider that it may be a stimulus for the achievement of excellence in the performance of this monitoring task. On the other hand, we also highlight risks for the rights of participants if an adequate monitoring framework is not ensured. Under these circumstances, we observe how the EU faces a dilemma. On the one hand, it may promote a rigid uniformity between the regulation of ethics committees between Member States, but this might diminish the quality of their performance.On the other hand, it may opt for maintaining the current situation, but this might increase differences in the performance of the ethics committees between Member States, including the number trials performed by country. A third option would be to allow the competitive framework to remain for a set period of time, in order to learn from the best practices reached in individual Member States before finally harmonizing national legislative provisions on this basis.\\nethics committees, clinical trials, Regulation on clinical trials, regulatory competition\",\"PeriodicalId\":43955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Public Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Public Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2020046\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2020046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

欧盟关于临床试验的新规定旨在促进欧洲联盟在这一领域的规则更加协调。然而,它没有详细制定关于研究伦理委员会运作的共同规范框架,将这一责任留给会员国。本文对由此产生的监管状况进行了比较分析。它表明,这种情况是由欧盟成员国之间道德监督监管的相当大的可变性所定义的。我们认为,这种差异不一定是欧盟审判监督制度优化的负面因素。此外,我们认为这可能会刺激在执行这项监督任务时取得卓越成绩。另一方面,我们还强调,如果不能确保充分的监测框架,参与者的权利将面临风险。在这种情况下,我们观察到欧盟如何面临困境。一方面,这可能会促进会员国之间对道德操守委员会的监管严格统一,但这可能会降低其业绩质量。另一方面,它可能会选择维持目前的情况,但这可能会增加会员国之间道德委员会的表现差异,包括各国进行的试验数量。第三种选择是允许竞争框架保留一段时间,以便在最终在此基础上统一国家立法规定之前,学习各个成员国达成的最佳做法
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An EU Comparative Analysis of the Regulation of Clinical Trials Supervisory Bodies in the Aftermath of Regulation 536/2014
The new EU regulation on clinical trials is intended to promote a greater level of harmonization of European Union rules in this area. However, it does not elaborate a common normative framework regarding the functioning of research ethics committees, leaving this responsibility to the Member States. This article offers a comparative analysis of the resulting regulatory situation. It demonstrates that this scenario is defined by considerable variability in the regulation of ethics monitoring between the EU Member States. We argue that this disparity should not necessarily be a negative factor for theoptimization of the trial supervision regime in the EU.Moreover, we consider that it may be a stimulus for the achievement of excellence in the performance of this monitoring task. On the other hand, we also highlight risks for the rights of participants if an adequate monitoring framework is not ensured. Under these circumstances, we observe how the EU faces a dilemma. On the one hand, it may promote a rigid uniformity between the regulation of ethics committees between Member States, but this might diminish the quality of their performance.On the other hand, it may opt for maintaining the current situation, but this might increase differences in the performance of the ethics committees between Member States, including the number trials performed by country. A third option would be to allow the competitive framework to remain for a set period of time, in order to learn from the best practices reached in individual Member States before finally harmonizing national legislative provisions on this basis. ethics committees, clinical trials, Regulation on clinical trials, regulatory competition
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
×
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