Suchergebnisse

Background: Historically, some of the worst abuses of human research participants have involved populations which are vulnerable to coercion, harm, or exploitation, such as prisoners, children, and people with compromised decision-making abilities. Although there has been considerable philosophical and ethical debate about how to protect vulnerable populations, there have been only a handful of empirical studies on vulnerable population policies. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study on vulnerable population policies from the 105 top funded U.S. academic research institutions. We used deductive and inductive methods to develop our framework for coding the policies. We tested for associations between policies and research and development expenditure rank, public vs. private status, geographic region, and Association for Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs accreditation (AAHRRP). Results: U.S. academic institutions have a variety of policies for research with vulnerable populations. Every institution in our sample had at least 2 policies for research with vulnerable populations (including a general policy) and most had 8 or more. As expected, the most highly prevalent policies pertained to populations covered in subparts B, C, and D of the Common Rule (pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, prisoners, and children) but other groups were well-represented, including people with disabilities; people with impaired decision-making capacity; students/trainees; and people with limited English proficiency including illiteracy. AAHRRP accreditation was positively associated with eight different types of policies. Conclusion: U.S. academic institutions have a variety of policies for research with vulnerable populations. Additional research is needed to better understand the types of safeguards that institutions have adopted to protect vulnerable populations and the factors that influence policy development.

In 2000, the US federal government adopted a uniform definition of research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP), which became effective in 2001. Institutions must apply this definition of misconduct to federally-funded research to receive funding. While institutions are free to adopt definitions of misconduct that go beyond the federal standard, it is not known how may do. We analyzed misconduct policies from 183 US research institutions and coded them according to thirteen different types of behavior mentioned in the misconduct definition. We also obtained data on the institution's total research funding and public vs. private status, and the year it adopted the definition. We found that more than half (59%) of the institutions in our sample had misconduct policies that went beyond the federal standard. Other than FFP, the most common behaviors included in definitions were "other serious deviations" (45.4%), "significant or material violations of regulations" (23.0%), "misuse of confidential information" (15.8%), "misconduct related to misconduct" (14.8%), "unethical authorship other than plagiarism" (14.2%), "other deception involving data manipulation" (13.1%), and "misappropriation of property/theft" (10.4%). Significantly more definitions adopted in 2001 or later went beyond the federal standard than those adopted before 2001 (73.2% vs. 26.8%), and significantly more definitions adopted by institutions in the lower quartile of total research funding went beyond the federal standard than those adopted by institutions in the upper quartiles. Public vs. private status was not significantly associated with going beyond the federal standard.