The Revised Common Rule, slated to take effect Jan. 21, 2019, will bring some significant changes to our UAMS/ACH policies and procedures related to human subject research. Note that we can’t accuse the federal Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) of rushing through this rule-making process; this is the first major revision since the original […]

It’s great when your study results support your hypothesis. Less appreciated, but equally important  is when your study results show your hypothesis wasn’t correct. Researchers tend to be more enthusiastic about publishing the former than the latter, we’ve noticed. Here’s a New York Times piece that discusses the importance of letting the world know about […]

While the name “Brian Wansink” may not be immediately familiar, some of the research he’s known for probably is. Dr. Wansink’s research into how people make decisions about what and how much to eat gets a lot of play in the popular media. He’s one of those rock star scientists. At the end of the […]

When making changes to study staff, please keep in mind the IRB cannot and will not review any revised documents submitted with staff-only modifications. Many staff changes can be made without revising any documents, which is why we created the “staff-only” modification form option. These “staff-only” changes can be reviewed and acknowledged by the IRB […]

A New York Times piece that appeared in the printed paper Sept. 9 addressed what it termed a prominent researcher’s failure to disclose conflicts of interest in research publications. We know that appropriate disclosure is a typical requirement of conflict of interest management plans. Please click on the link above to read more. Update: The researcher […]

We’re working furiously to prepare for the implementation of the Revised Common Rule, now scheduled for Jan. 21, 2019. Below is a recap of some of the more notable changes in the rule, followed by an explanation of how we anticipate incorporating those changes at UAMS. Please note this is only the tip of the […]

Please remember discussions that happen inside the IRB’s meeting room need to stay inside the meeting room. IRB determinations and contingencies are considered group decisions. Those decisions are relayed to the research team via correspondence through CLARA. Reviewers – If someone on a research team asks you for specifics about their project’s IRB review, please […]

A study involving pregnant women and fetuses was terminated early in The Netherlands after the deaths of 11 neonates. We post this here as a reminder of some of the things the IRB has in the back of its mind when reviewing studies, and that investigators think about when they develop and join studies.

There has been significant discussion lately about making it possible for patients to access drugs that are not yet approved for use in certain cases. Desperate patients might view this access as their last, best hope – even though the risks and benefits of these items are not yet fully known. Right to try laws […]