This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

George J. Hill, MD
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Newark

JAMA. 1987;258(12):1604.

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

To the Editor.—

I am chairman of our hospital's bioethics committee and a past chairman of our hospital and medical school's institutional review board (IRB) (the committee that oversees research on human subjects). I am therefore interested in current research practices related to human subjects and in the practice of scientific journals that report research performed on humans.

Three articles in the May 15, 1987, issue of JAMA raise questions in my mind about the adequacy of review by IRBs. In two of the articles I do not find mention of IRB review, while in the third article "no consent" was deemed necessary by the IRB.

Research described by Bartholomew et al¹ was performed outside the United States, where IRB standards may be different from those inside the country. The research was a collaborative effort of foreign organizations and the US National Cancer Institute. It used blood specimens that . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Drummond Rennie, MD, Senior Contribut ing Editor; Sharon Iverson, Assistant Editor.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?