This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In his discussion of the institutional review board (IRB) process, Mr Annas¹ suggests that consent forms initially intended to protect human research subjects have been transformed into a tool to protect researchers and institutions. To the extent that this transformation has occurred, the explanation may be straightforward. Many research projects entail so little risk to patients that the only measurable risk is that posed by the legal system or regulatory agencies to an institution or researcher accused of violating process. Although the tort system may eventually address its problem with so-called junk science,² the IRB system currently seems to be enamored with process, which for some research largely represents "junk regulation." Even for research where the risk of harm to any patient is less than that of daily activities such as discarding old tax returns or driving to the store, the IRB system soldiers on as if . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Reforming Informed Consent to Genetic Research
George J. Annas
JAMA. 2001;286(18):2326-2328.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Disease Management in the Young Diabetic Patient: Glucose Monitoring, Coping Skills, and Treatment Strategies
Weinzimer et al.
CLIN PEDIATR 2005;44:393-403.
ABSTRACT  

An Update on Type 2 Diabetes in Youth From the National Diabetes Education Program
Diabetes in Children Adolescents Work Group of the
Pediatrics 2004;114:259-263.
FULL TEXT