National Academies Press: OpenBook

Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners (2007)

Chapter: C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections

« Previous: B The National Commission's Deliberations and Findings
Suggested Citation:"C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11692.
×

C
Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections

In 2003, the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) asked its Subpart C Subcommittee to review the text and application of Subpart C primarily to determine whether the current Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) interpretation and application of Subpart C’s requirements should be modified.1

Among the topics the subcommittee addressed were

  • the definition of the term prisoner under Subpart C,

  • the application of research protections to those who become incarcerated after agreeing to participate in a nonprisoner study,

  • issues with identifying a prisoner representative for prisoner research institutional review boards (IRBs) and particularly in multisite studies,

  • conduct of expedited review in prisoner research,

  • the definition of minimal risk under Subpart C (which is different from the Subpart A definition), and

  • the requirement of secretarial review when prisoners in the control group are merely provided the standard of care.

These topics and the subcommittee’s recommendations for further consideration by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) are discussed in more detail below.

1

The full report of the subcommittee’s findings is available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/mtgings/present/SubpartC.htm.

Suggested Citation:"C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11692.
×

DEFINITION OF PRISONER

The subcommittee recommended that a modified Subpart A analysis apply when a subject who is enrolled in a study may not be fully within the definition of the term prisoner for the duration of the study. First, the subcommittee affirmed that the interpretation of prisoner should remain defined by the words of the regulation and not expanded to include other subjects whose liberty is restricted, such as those in community correctional facilities or on probation or parole. Although those subjects deserve heightened protection, the subcommittee recommended that the DHHS rely on Subpart A’s protections for subjects “vulnerable to coercion or undue influence” without including those subjects as prisoners under Subpart C. Likewise, when a subject is incarcerated after becoming enrolled in a study, the concerns about coercion and undue influence are not as great; at the same time, it may be difficult to modify the research protocol to comply with Subpart C. Therefore, the subcommittee suggested that Subpart A’s general requirement of heightened protection apply instead. The subcommittee recommended that an IRB should review a researcher’s request to continue the research when a subject subsequently becomes incarcerated, taking into account the new conditions of incarceration but without fully engaging in a new Subpart C approval process.

PRISONER IRB REPRESENTATIVE

The subcommittee discussed a variety of problems with identifying a representative who would be skilled and knowledgeable enough to be effective but not so unlike the rest of the IRB as to be marginalized. The subcommittee recommended that the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) assist IRBs in searching for an appropriate prisoner representative, which might include family members of prisoners, former prisoners (especially people in recovery from substance addiction who have also had experience as prisoners), and service providers who assist in the correctional process. It was recommended that the OHRP should provide functional criteria that might help IRBs (and investigators, who are also responsible for the composition of an IRB that will properly evaluate ethical issues) identify persons who can be an effective voice for prisoners within the IRB. With respect to multisite studies, the subcommittee recommended that, although Subpart C only requires one prisoner representative on a central IRB for multisite research, the IRB must nevertheless consider the individual circumstances of each prison site, which can vary widely. In addition, with respect to expedited review, the subcommittee recommended that, if expedited review of a protocol is required, a prisoner representative should be one of the reviewers.

Suggested Citation:"C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11692.
×

DEFINING MINIMAL RISK AND BENEFIT TO PARTICIPANT

The subcommittee considered two issues regarding the distinction between using as the ethical baseline other healthy prisoners as opposed to other healthy persons generally. First, the subcommittee affirmed that the different definition of minimal risk in the Subpart C regulations compared with Subpart A regulations was appropriate. The Subpart C regulations specify that the determination of minimal risk must be in comparison to the ordinary experience of a healthy person, which the subcommittee interpreted as referring to a healthy person outside the prison environment. The subcommittee cautioned that the greater situational risk in the prison setting should not influence the baseline for the IRB’s decision; rather, the minimal risk should be compared with the risk to a healthy person in a safe environment. The OHRP should provide guidance, using examples, of how the minimal risk might be viewed in different protocols.

At the same time, the subcommittee viewed the current OHRP interpretation of when a protocol does not provide a benefit to the participant as overly restrictive. The OHRP’s position is that using standard of care as a control arm does not provide any benefit to the participant and thus requires secretarial review and expert panel consideration. The subcommittee’s view is that, because the participant receives the standard of care and does ultimately benefit from the results of the research, even if not immediately, such a control arm should not require heightened review. The subcommittee recommended that only when the control group is placebo only (and thus deviating from the standard of care) should the protocol be considered to include an arm not benefiting from the research.

The subcommittee also pointed out the problems with the jurisdiction of Subpart C. Because it has been adopted by so few agencies, it has limited application to federally funded research. In addition, it does not automatically apply to institutions that have signed a federal-wide assurance (FWA) unless they specifically request that it be part of their obligation. Because of these two enormous gaps in coverage, most research involving prisoners does not fall under the special protections of Subpart C.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE

In addition to its recommendations on the issues discussed previously, the subcommittee noted with approval that the IOM had been charged with studying the human research protections for prisoners. The subcommittee recommended the IOM committee consider the need for a requirement that research only be conducted in prisons providing standard of care to the general population (and how best to get such services in place); the interpre-

Suggested Citation:"C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11692.
×

tation of the requirement that follow-up care be provided when the prisoner has been released from confinement; and the limited jurisdiction of Subpart C (i.e., to DHHS-supported research only).

OTHER FEDERAL HUMAN SUBJECTS PROTECTIONS

The full panoply of DHHS protections for prisoners in Subpart C presently only apply to research funded by DHHS, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Social Security Administration. Some of the other 14 departments and agencies that have adopted the Common Rule accept the OHRP-approved FWA as assurance of compliance with ethical regulations regarding human research subjects. However, those departments and agencies have not adopted Subpart C, so the assurance only requires certification of compliance with the Common Rule (Subpart A).2 Although institutions holding an FWA and engaging in research funded by one of the other departments or agencies may voluntarily extend their protections to include those under the other subparts (including Subpart C)—the OHRP estimates that this applies to approximately 60 percent of institutions holding an FWA—they are not required to do so.

Moreover, prisoner research that is funded by another department or agency (other than DHHS) falls outside of the protections of the OHRP oversight even if the institution has requested in its FWA that Subpart C apply because the OHRP does not monitor the institution’s compliance with a voluntary assurance regarding Subpart C. Additionally, an organization that does not receive its funding from any of these sources generally does not hold an FWA and is not required to comply with the Common Rule or any of the subparts (see Table C-1).

At the same time, certain federal departments or agencies that have adopted a form of the Common Rule have also adopted their own additional rules protecting certain categories of human research subjects other than Subpart C. Of particular interest are the Department of Justice, because it includes the Bureau of Prisons, and the Food and Drug Administration, because its regulations govern a majority of biomedical research (regardless of whether the subjects of the study are prisoners).

2

One exception is the Department of Education, which has adopted Subpart D but has not adopted Subparts B or C of the DHHS regulations.

Suggested Citation:"C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11692.
×

TABLE C-1 Overview of Regulations Applicable to Research Involving Prisoners as Subjects, Independent of Funding Source

 

Federal–Adult

Federal–Juvenile

State–Adult

State–Juvenile

Medical treatment–nontherapeutic/cosmetic

Not permitted

Not permitted

FDA Subpart A, state policy

FDA Subpart A, FDA Subpart D, state policy

Pharmaceutical/medical device–therapeutic (for specific inmate’s condition)

DOJ Subpart A, FDA Subpart A, DHHS (Subpart C)

DOJ Subpart A, FDA Subpart A, DHHS (Subpart C), FDA Subpart D

FDA Subpart A, FDA Subpart D, state policy

FDA Subpart A, FDA Subpart D, state policy

Non-FDA regulated medica treatment– therapeutic

DOJ Subpart A, DHHS (Subpart C)

DOJ Subpart A, DHHS (Subpart C)

Varies by state

Varies by state

Nonmedical research

DOJ Subpart A, BOP research policy

DOJ Subpart A, BOP research policy

Varies by state

Varies by state

Suggested Citation:"C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11692.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11692.
×
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11692.
×
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11692.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11692.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11692.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"C Report of the SACHRP Subcommittee and Human Subjects Protections." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11692.
×
Page 204
Next: D Code of Federal Regulations Title 45: Public Welfare Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects »
Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $63.00 Buy Ebook | $49.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In the past 30 years, the population of prisoners in the United States has expanded almost 5-fold, correctional facilities are increasingly overcrowded, and more of the country's disadvantaged populations—racial minorities, women, people with mental illness, and people with communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis—are under correctional supervision.

Because prisoners face restrictions on liberty and autonomy, have limited privacy, and often receive inadequate health care, they require specific protections when involved in research, particularly in today's correctional settings. Given these issues, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Human Research Protections commissioned the Institute of Medicine to review the ethical considerations regarding research involving prisoners.

The resulting analysis contained in this book, Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners, emphasizes five broad actions to provide prisoners involved in research with critically important protections:

• expand the definition of "prisoner";

• ensure universally and consistently applied standards of protection;

• shift from a category-based to a risk-benefit approach to research review;

• update the ethical framework to include collaborative responsibility; and

• enhance systematic oversight of research involving prisoners.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!