We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Letters |

How Much Oversight Is Necessary to Protect Human Subjects?—Reply

George J. Annas, JD, MPH
JAMA. 2002;287(6):716-717. doi:10.1001/jama.287.6.711.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


In Reply: I agree with Dr Foucar that the current IRB system needs reform, and that there is a need for a reliable way for IRBs to distinguish "between research projects for which extensive oversight is likely to benefit research subjects" and those where "brief discussion . . . is perfectly adequate." This may be true, for example, of some studies involving medical record reviews.1 The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) emphasized this problem in their August 2001 report. In their words: "Research review and monitoring should be intensified as the risk and complexity of the research increase and at all times should emphasize protecting participants rather than following rigid rules."2 The NBAC would certainly agree that a brief discussion provides enough oversight for many research projects, but would also recommend something that seldom happens for risky research projects: not just review, but oversight during the research itself, including "an ongoing system of education and certification that helps researchers to anticipate and minimize research risks."2 I agree with NBAC that such oversight is likely to help protect human subjects, but Foucar is also correct: we should study the impact of oversight as it is developed and implemented to make sure it is achieving its goal of protecting human subjects.


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.