Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:13:37.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research Malpractice and the Issue of Incidental Findings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Alan C. Milstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and functional MRI (fMRI) are important tools for neuroscience research because of their capability for investigating both the structure and function of the brain. The fMRI image extends traditional anatomical imaging of the MRI to include maps of human brain function. The ability to observe brain function opens an array of opportunities to research brain organization, neurological status, and neurosurgical risk. Neurological research is, thus, burgeoning. For example, Columbia University currently has several ongoing protocols investigating fMRI’s future role in neurosurgical planning, pain management, and understanding the physiological basis for neurological disorders as well as cognitive and perceptual events. One can imagine research proposals, both important and trivial, on such topics as whether brain imaging can shed light on the nature of dreams, memory, speech development, love, anger, or addiction.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , Summer 2008 , pp. 356 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alphs, H. et al., “Findings on Brain MRI from Research Studies of Occupational Exposure to Known Neurotoxicants,” American Journal of Rosentgenology 187, no. 4 (2006): 1043–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Columbia University Functional MRI Research Center, “The Future Role of Functional MRI in Medical Applications,” available at <http://www.fmri.org/fmri.htm> (last visited February 20, 2008).+(last+visited+February+20,+2008).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Illes, J. et al., “Discovery and Disclosure of Incidental Findings in Neuroimaging Research,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 20, no. 5 (2004): 743–747 (multiple citations omitted).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illes, J. et al., “Ethical Consideration of Incidental Findings on Adult Brain MRI in Research,” Neurology 62, no. 6 (2004): 888–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Alphs, et al., supra note 1, at 1–7.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Illes, et al., supra note 4.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 745.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 746.Google Scholar
Ross, K., “When Volunteers Are Not Healthy,” EMBO Reports 6, no. 12 (2005): 1116–1119, at 1118, available at <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1369211> (last visited February 20, 2008) (quoting Alan Evans, neuroimaging researcher from McGill University, Montreal, Canada); see also Illes, et al., supra note 5, at 890 (“[W]e must balance the benefit of involving medical personnel trained to read scans and interact with participants against the legal risk and financial burden of clinician assessment of all participant MRIs and the workload challenges associated with sheer volume.”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The study exposed children to greater than minimal risk with no benefit and induced participation for money not altruism.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46 (2007).Google Scholar
366 Md. 29 (2001).Google Scholar
Id., at 113.Google Scholar
Id., at 89, 91–100, 103.Google Scholar
Id., at 101.Google Scholar
Id., at 101–102 (citing in part National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants, 2001, available at <http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/human/overvol1.pdf> [last visited February 20, 2008]).+[last+visited+February+20,+2008]).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., Lambert v. Park, 597 F.2d 2369 (10th Cir. 1979); Perna v. Pirozzi, 92 N.J. 444 (1983).Google Scholar
Id. (citing Faya v. Almaraz, 620 A.2d 327, 333 [Md. 1993]).Google Scholar
See Illes, et al., supra note 5.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See generally, American College of Radiology, “Accreditation Programs,” available at <http://www.acr.org/accreditation.aspx> (last visited February 20, 2008).+(last+visited+February+20,+2008).>Google Scholar
See Ross, , supra note 23, at 4 (citing Check, E., “Brain-Scan Ethics Come Under the Spotlight,” Nature 433, no. 7030 (2005): 185.Google Scholar
Id. (citing Illes, et al., supra note 4).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Simpson v. Sisters of Charity of Providence in Oregon, 588 P.2d 4 (Or. 1978).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Ross, , supra note 23.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Stanley v. McCarver, 92 P.3d 849 (Ariz. 2004); Vucinich v. Ross, 893 So. 2d 690 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2005).Google Scholar