Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T22:55:01.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Human Subjects Trade: Ethical and Legal Issues Surrounding Recruitment Incentives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Trudo Lemmens  and
Paul B. Miller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the past 5 years, a series of articles in leading American newspapers has revealed the extent to which the conduct of clinical trials may be affected by inducements offered by corporate research sponsors and accepted by some unscrupulous physicians. The cases described were disturbing. They involved physicians engaged in excessive “enrollment activities” in exchange for money. Some of these physicians perpetrated fraud, falsifying their recruitment records in order to increase their profits. Others ignored exclusion criteria designed to ensure the safety of subjects and the validity of research results, referring their patients to research investigating treatments for conditions from which they did not suffer. One of the articles reports that physicians focusing exclusively on commercial research regularly divulge annual incomes upwards of $1,000,000 with profits in excess of $300,000. Two physicians accumulated well over $10,000,000 through clinical trials activities in less than a decade.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , Fall 2003 , pp. 398 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003

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

Whitaker, R., “Lure of Riches Fuels Testing,” The Boston Globe, November 17, 1998, at A-1; Eichenwald, K. Kolata, G., “Drug Trials Hide Conflicts for Doctors,” The New York Times, May 16, 1999, at 1.1. See also Andrews, L.B., “Money is Putting People at Risk in Biomedical Research,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, no. 27 (2000): B-4.Google Scholar
Eichenwald, Kolata, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Dembner, A., “Who's Protecting the Children? Drug Research Raises Concerns About Policy and Penalties,” The Boston Globe, March 25, 2001, at A-1.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Recruiting Human Subjects: Pressures in Industry-sponsored Research (2000): At 8, 25.Google Scholar
Few articles focus exclusively on recruitment incentives. See Lind, S., “Finder's Fees for Research Subjects,” N. Engl. J. Med., 303 (1990): 192–95; “Is the Practice of Offering Finder's Fees for Subject Recruitment Appropriate? Is the Practice Widespread or Unique to My Institution? What is the Proper Role of the IRB? What is the Role of the Institution?,” IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 12, no. 4 (1990): 6; DeRenzo, E.G., “Coercion in the Recruitment and Retention of Human Research Subjects, Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Physician-Investigators, and the Moral Courage of the IRB,” IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 22, no. 2 (2000): 1–5; Miller, P.B. Lemmens, T., “Finder's Fees and Therapeutic Obligations,” Geriatrics and Aging, 5, no. 1 (2002): 66–69; Caulfield, T. Griener, G., “Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research: Addressing the Issue of Physician Remuneration,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30, no. 2 (2002): 305–08. Other articles do refer to some of the issues in varying degrees of detail. See, e.g., Dresser, R., “Payment to Research Participants: The Importance of Context,” American Journal of Bioethics, 1, no. 2 (2001): 47; Rothstein, M.A., “Currents in Contemporary Ethics: The Role of IRBs in Research Involving Commercial Biobanks,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30, no. 1 (2002): 105–08, at 106, and other articles on conflict of interest cited herein.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldner, J.A., “Dealing with Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: IRB Oversight as the Next Best Solution to the Abolition Approach,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 28, no. 4 (2000): 379–404, at 382.Google Scholar
See Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 5, at 16; Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Recruiting Human Subjects: Sample Guidelines for Practice (2000): 1–23, at 8. See also Torrey, E.F., “The Going Rate on Shrinks: Big Pharma and the Buying of Psychiatry,” The American Prospect, 13, no. 13 (2002). A study by Boyd, Elizabeth A. Bero, Lisa A., in which they analyzed disclosures of financial ties with industry by researchers at the University of California, revealed that 34 percent of disclosed relationships involved paid speaking engagements, providing speakers with annual revenues ranging between $200 and $20,000. See Boyd, E.A. Bero, L.A., “Assessing Faculty Relationships with Industry: A Case Study,” JAMA, 184, no. 17 (2000): 2209–14, at 2211.Google Scholar
See Boyd, Bero, , supra note 8, at 2211–12 for a case analysis of such relationships. Boyd and Bero report that 33 percent of disclosed relationships involved paid consulting, for which annual revenues ranged between $1,000 and $120,000.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 5, at 1, 15.Google Scholar
Kelch, R.P., “Maintaining the Public Trust in Clinical Research,” N. Engl. J. Med., 346, no. 4 (2002): 285–87; Martin, J.B. Kasper, D.L., “In Whose Best Interest? Breaching the Academic-Industrial Wall,” N. Engl. J. Med., 343, no. 22 (2000): 1646–49; Angell, M., “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?,” N. Engl. J. Med., 342, no. 20 (2000): 1516–18; Lewis, S. et al., “Dancing with the Porcupine: Rules for Governing the University-Industry Relationship,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165, no. 6 (2001): 783–85; Rettig, R.A., “The Industrialization of Clinical Research,” Health Affairs, 19, no. 2 (2000): 129–45; Morin, K. et al., “Managing Conflicts of Interest in the Conduct of Clinical Trials,” JAMA, 287 (2002): 78–84, at 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, et al., supra note 11, at 78.Google Scholar
Larkin, M., “Clinical Trials: What Price Progress?,” The Lancet, 354 (1999): 1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, et al., supra note 11, at 78.Google Scholar
Id., Rettig, , supra note 11.Google Scholar
Larkin, , supra note 13, at 1534.Google Scholar
Morin, et al., supra note 11, at 78; see also Bodenheimer, T., “Uneasy Alliance — Clinician Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry,” N. Engl. J. Med., 342, no. 20 (2000): 1539–44, at 1539.Google Scholar
Shamoo, A.E., “Adverse Events Reporting — The Tip of an Iceberg,” Accountability in Research, 8 (2001): 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
It is hard to say how realistic this number is. Clearly, the United States leads Canada in research funding by a considerable margin. Furthermore, in the United States many may participate in research to obtain access to treatment.Google Scholar
Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (1024 - Clinical Trials), P.C. 2001–1042, Canada Gazette, 2001 Part II Page 1116, at 1139.Google Scholar
Lewis, et al., supra note 11, at 783.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Shamoo, , supra note 18, at 197.Google Scholar
Goldner, , supra note 7, at 382.Google Scholar
Bodenheimer, , supra note 17, at 1539.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
The issue of payment of subjects is clearly related to that of payment of finder's fees. Finder's fees are intended to attract researchers to recruitment activity; payments to subjects are intended to convince subjects to participate. We focus in this article on the pressure exercised on researchers and on how this affects their legal and ethical duties. For a discussion of payment of subjects, see Grady, C., “Money for Research Participation: Does it Jeopardize Informed Consent?” American Journal of Bioethics, 1, no. 2 (2001): 40–44 and commentaries; Lemmens, T. Elliott, C., “Guinea Pigs on the Payroll: The Ethics of Paying Research Subjects,” Accountability in Research, 7 (1999): 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quoted in Dembner, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
Whitaker, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 5, at 13.Google Scholar
Bodenheimer, , supra note 17, at 1539.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 5, at 18.Google Scholar
Goldner, , supra note 7, at 382. See also Bodenheimer, , supra note 17, at 1541.Google Scholar
National Institutes for Health, Conference on Human Subject Protection and Financial Conflicts of Interest (2000) (conference transcript): At 45.Google Scholar
Bodenheimer, , supra note 17, at 1540.Google Scholar
Rettig, , supra note 11, at 138.Google Scholar
Id., at 139; Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 5, at 11.Google Scholar
Whitaker, , supra, note 1.Google Scholar
Macklin, R., quoted in Larkin, , supra note 13.Google Scholar
See generally Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 5, at 20–26; see also Shalala, D., “Protecting Research Subjects — What Must be Done,” N. Engl. J. Med., 343, no. 11 (2000): 808–10, at 808. See also Morin, et al., supra note 11, at 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See sources cited at note 1, supra.Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health, supra note 35, at 14; see also Goldner, , supra note 7, at 381.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 5, at 25.Google Scholar
Personal communication from Dr. Barry Goldlist to the author (TL), December 10, 2001.Google Scholar
Larkin, , supra note 13, at 1534; see also Miller, F.G. Shorr, A.F., “Ethical Assessment of Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials: A Case Analysis,” Chest, 121, no. 4 (2002): 1337–42, at 1337.Google Scholar
See Montaner, J.S.G. O'Shaughnessy, M.V. Schechter, M.T., “Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research: A Double-Edged Sword,” The Lancet, 358 (2001): 1893–95; Naylor, C.D., “Early Toronto Experience with New Standards for Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research: A Progress Report,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 166, no. 4 (2002): 453–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodenheimer, , supra note 17, at 1541–42. See also Davidoff, F., “Between the Lines: Navigating the Uncharted Territory of Industry-Sponsored Research,” Health Affairs 21, no. 2 (2002): 235–42; “Look, No Strings: Publishing Industry-Funded Research,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165, no. 6 (2001): 733 (editorial).Google Scholar
Bodenheimer, , supra note 17, at 1541–42.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 5, at 17.Google Scholar
See, for example, reports on the Nancy Olivieri affair: Report to the Board of Trustees of the Hospital for Sick Children, “Clinical Trials of L1 (Deferiprone) at the Hospital for Sick Children: A Review of Facts and Circumstances,” (December 8, 1998), available at <http://www.sickkids.on.ca/L1trials/revcontents.asp>, Thompson, J. Baird, P. Downie, J., The Olivieri Report: The Complete Text of the Report of the Independent Inquiry Commissioned by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (Toronto: James Lorimer, 2001); Naimark, A. Knoppers, B.M. Lowy, F.H., "Commentary on Selected Aspects of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Case of Dr. Olivieri, the Hospital for Sick Children, the University of Toronto, and Apotex Inc." (December 2001), formerly available at <http://www.sickkids.on.ca/MediaRoom/CAUTfinal2ed.pdf> (last visited January 22, 2002); Thompson, J. Baird, P. Downie, J., "Supplement to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Case Involving Dr. Nancy Olivieri, the Hospital for Sick Children, the University of Toronto, and Apotex Inc.," (January, 30 2002), available at <http://www.dal.ca/∼jgdownie/coi/SupplementtoInqReport.pdf>.Google Scholar
Goldner, , supra note 7, at 385.Google Scholar
For an interesting argument on how payment of subjects affects the moral status and social conception of research participation, see Chambers, T., “Participation as Commodity, Participation as Gift,” American Journal of Bioethics, 1, no. 2 (2001): 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlowski, R. Wateska, L., “The Effects of Pharmaceutical Firm Enticements on Physician Prescribing Patterns,” Chest, 102 (1992): 270–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See generally Goldner, , supra note 7, at 390; and Glass, K.C. Lemmens, T., “Conflict of Interest and Commercialization of Biomedical Research: What is the Role of Research Ethics Review?” in Caulfield, T. Williams-Jones, B., eds., The Commercialization of Genetic Research: Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues (New York, NY: Kluwer, 1999): At 79.Google Scholar
Goldner, , supra note 7, at 390; Fleetwood, J., “Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research: Advocating for Patient-Subjects,” Widener Law Symposium Journal, 8 (2001): 105–14, at 112.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration, Information Sheets: Guidance for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators (1998).Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 5, at 26.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
The DHHS regulations are at 42 C.F.R. Subpart F; the FDA regulations at 21 C.F.R. Parts 54, 312, 314, 320, 330, 601, 807, 812, 814, and 860Google Scholar
See Association of American Medical Colleges, Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research, Protecting Subjects, Preserving Trust, Promoting Progress: Policy and Guidelines for the Oversight of Individual Financial Conflict of Interest in Human Subjects Research (2001), available at <http://www.aamc.org/members/coitf/start.htm> at 5–6. The shortcomings of the regulations are also recognized in DHHS Draft Interim Guidance, available at <http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/nhrpac/mtg12–00/finguid.htm>.+at+5–6.+The+shortcomings+of+the+regulations+are+also+recognized+in+DHHS+Draft+Interim+Guidance,+available+at+.>Google Scholar
For details, see Shalala, , supra note 41, at 810.Google Scholar
DHHS Draft Interim Guidance, supra note 61; and Department of Health and Human Services, Draft “Financial Relationships and Interests in Research Involving Human Subjects: Guidance for Human Subject Protection,” Federal Register, 68, no. 61 (March 31, 2003), at 15456–60.Google Scholar
See Weiss, R., “New HHS Panel Makeup Draws Ire of Patient Advocates,” The Washington Post, January 5, 2003, at A-09.Google Scholar
Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research, supra note 61; and Association of American Medical Colleges, Task Force on Financial Conflict of Interest in Clinical Research, Institutional Conflict of Interest, Protecting Subjects, Preserving Trust, Promoting Progress II: Principles and Recommendations for Oversight of an Institution's Financial Interests in Human Subjects Research (Association of American Medical Colleges, 2001).Google Scholar
Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations, supra note 20, at 1131.Google Scholar
Dickens, B.M., “Conflict of Interest in Canadian Health Care Law,” American Journal of Law & Medicine, 21, nos. 2&3 (1995): 259–80, at 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medical Research Council of Canada (MRC), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), Tri-Council Policy Statement (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1998): Art. 4.1. In the section dealing with clinical trials, the Policy Statement also explicitly requires REBs to examine the budgets of clinical trials (see art. 7.3).Google Scholar
Id. at art. 7.3.Google Scholar
Id. at art. 2.6 (e).Google Scholar
For more on the limits on the responsibility of REBs, see Keiger, D. De Pasquale, S., “Trials & Tribulation,” Johns Hopkins Magazine, available at <http://www.jhu.edu/∽jhumag/0202web/trials.html>..>Google Scholar
For similar arguments in consideration of the U.S. system, see Fleetwood, , supra note 56.Google Scholar
See generally Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform (1998); Koski, G., “Risks, Benefits, and Conflicts of Interest in Human Research: Ethical Evolution in the Changing World of Science,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 28, no. 4 (2000): 330–31; Shalala, , supra note 41, at 809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, T. Freedman, B., “Ethics Review for Sale? Conflict of Interest and Commercial Research Review Boards,” Milbank Quarterly, 78 (2000): 547–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations, supra note 20 at 1143, 1132.Google Scholar
See Ferris, L.E., “Industry-Sponsored Pharmaceutical Trials and Research Ethics Boards: Are They Cloaked in Too Much Secrecy?” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 166, no. 10 (2002): 1279–80, at 1279.Google Scholar
Weijer, C., “Placebo Trials and Tribulations,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 166, no. 5 (2002): 603–04.Google Scholar
MRC, NSERC, SSHRC, supra note 68, at art.7.4 (discussing placebo controls).Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 73: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Institutional Review Boards: The Emergence of Independent Boards (1998); Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Institutional Review Boards: Their Role in Reviewing Approved Research (1998); Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Institutional Review Boards: Promising Approaches (1998); U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants (2001); Cho, M.K. Billings, P., “Conflict of Interest and Institutional Review Boards,” Journal of Investigative Medicine, 45, no. 4 (1997): 154–59.Google Scholar
Lemmens, T. Thompson, A., “Non-Institutional Research Review Boards in North America: A Critical Appraisal and Comparison with IRBs,” IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 23, no. 2 (2001): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, Freedman, , supra note 74; Cho, Billings, , supra note 79; Francis, L., “IRBs and Conflicts of Interest,” in Spece, R.S. Shimm, D.S. Buchanan, A.E., eds., Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice and Research (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996): 418.Google Scholar
Ferris, , supra note 76, at 1279.Google Scholar
Hirtle, M. Lemmens, T. Sprumont, D., “A Comparative Analysis of Research Ethics Review Mechanisms and the ICH Good Clinical Practice Guideline,” European Journal of Health Law, 7 (2000): 265–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Cho, Billings, , supra note 79, at 155; Glass, Lemmens, , supra note 55.Google Scholar
Lemmens, Freedman, , supra note 74.Google Scholar
See Cho, Billings, , supra note 79, at 156; see also Fleetwood, , supra note 56, at 111.Google Scholar
See generally Hirtle, Lemmens, Sprumont, , supra, note 83.Google Scholar
Translation by author (TL), Swiss Bundesgerichts, Second Public Law Division, July 4, 2003, Freiburger Ethik-Kommission International v. Regierungsrat des Kantons Basel-Landscbaft (2A.450/2002) available at <http://wwwsrv.bger.ch/cgi-bin/AZA/MapProcessorCGI_AZA?mapfile=pull/ConvertDocFrameCGI.map&ri=fr&lang=fr&ds=AZA_pull&d=04.07.2003_2A.450%2f2002&pa=1%7e2a%2b450%2b2002%4073%7e&>. A commentary on this case can be found in A. Jost, Arrêt du 4 juillet de la Hème cour de droit public du Tribunal fédéral, Freiburger Ethik-Kommission International c. Bâle-Campagne (2A.450/2002)” Revue suisse de droit de la santé, 1 (2003) (forthcoming)..+A+commentary+on+this+case+can+be+found+in+A.+Jost,+Arrêt+du+4+juillet+de+la+Hème+cour+de+droit+public+du+Tribunal+fédéral,+Freiburger+Ethik-Kommission+International+c.+Bâle-Campagne+(2A.450/2002)”+Revue+suisse+de+droit+de+la+santé,+1+(2003)+(forthcoming).>Google Scholar
Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, 782 A.2d 807 (Md. 2001), reconsideration denied (2001).Google Scholar
Dickens, , supra note 67, at 274Google Scholar
MRC, NSERC, SSHRC, supra note 68, at art. 4.1.Google Scholar
Canadian Medical Association, Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry (Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association, 2001).Google Scholar
Id. at paragraph 3.Google Scholar
Id. at paragraph 11.Google Scholar
American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, “Conflicts of Interest: Biomedical Research [opinion E-8.031],” in American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions (Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 2000).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, “Fee Splitting: Referrals to Health Care Facilities,” (opinion E-6.03) in American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions (Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 2000).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Finder's Fees: Payment for the Referral of Patients to Clinical Research Studies (report #65) (Chicago: American Medical Association, 1994).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.§ 3729(a) (2001).Google Scholar
Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C.§ 1320a-1327b (2001).Google Scholar
Kalb, P.E. Koehler, K.G., “Legal Issues in Scientific Research,” JAMA, 287, no. 1 (2002): 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 86.Google Scholar
Id. at 87–89.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R.§ 46.Google Scholar
21 C.F.R.§ 50.Google Scholar
42 C.F.R.§ 50.604.Google Scholar
Kalb, Koehler, , supra note 103, at 89.Google Scholar
Id. at 86 and 89.Google Scholar
Id. at 89.Google Scholar
Choudhry, S. Brown, A.D. Choudhry, N.K., "Kickbacks to Physicians and Physician Self-Referral in Canada: Unregulated Private Markets?" (manuscript in preparation).Google Scholar
Medicine Act, 1991 R.R.O. 856/93, amended to R.R.O. 53/95. We are indebted to Sujit Choudhry for bringing these provisions to our attention.Google Scholar
Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule II to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, R.S.O. 1991, c.18.Google Scholar
R.R.O. 241/94, amending 114/94.Google Scholar
For a short overview of the law on this issue, see Picard, E.I. Robertson, G.B., Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada, (3d ed.) (Toronto: Carswell, 1996): At 149–52; and Glass, K.C. Lemmens, T., “Research Involving Humans,” in Downie, J. Caulfield, T. Flood, C., Canadian Health Law and Policy, (2d ed.) (Toronto: Butterworths, 2002): 459–500, at 493–97.Google Scholar
Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 114 D.L.R. (3d) 1 (Can.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Hopp v. Lepp [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192 (Can.).Google Scholar
Picard, Robertson, , supra note 116, at 484.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Dickens, , supra note 67.Google Scholar
Halushka v. University of Saskatchewan, [1965] 52 W.W.R. 608, at 616.Google Scholar
Id. at 617.Google Scholar
[1989] R.J.Q. 731.Google Scholar
Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990).Google Scholar
Id. at 483.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Dickens, , supra note 67, at 273.Google Scholar
Rodwin, M.A., “Strains in the Fiduciary Metaphor: Divided Physician Loyalties and Obligations in a Changing Health Care System,” American Journal of Law & Medicine, 21, nos. 2&3 (1995): 241–57, at 243–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norberg v. Wynrib[1992] 92 D.L.R. (4th) 449 (Can.); see also Dickens, , supra note 67, at 261–62.Google Scholar
Norberg, , supra note 131, at 486.Google Scholar
Id. at 487.Google Scholar
Id. at 486.Google Scholar
Id. at 489.Google Scholar
Weinrib, E.J., “Restitutionary Damages as Corrective Justice,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 1, no. 1 (2000): 1–37, at 33.Google Scholar
Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. [2002] 209 D.L.R. (4th) 257 (Can.), at 274.Google Scholar
Dickens, , supra note 67, at 264.Google Scholar
Rodwin, , supra note 130, at 246.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Fleetwood, , supra note 56, at 109Google Scholar
Picard, Robertson, , supra, note 116, at 484.Google Scholar
Kalb, Koehler, , supra note 103.Google Scholar
Id. at 88.Google Scholar
See Davis, K. Roy, J., “Fraud in the Canadian Courts: An Unwarranted Expansion of the Scope of the Criminal Sanction,” Canadian Business Law Journal, 30 (1998): 210–38.Google Scholar
R. v. Gaetz [1993] 84 C.C.C. (3d) 351 (Can.).Google Scholar
R. v. Zlatic [1993] 19 C.R. (4th) 230 (Can.); see also R. v. Lajoie [1999] 136 C.C.C. (3d) 84 (Que. C.A.).Google Scholar
R. v. Emond [1997] 117 C.C.C. (3d) 276 (Que. C.A.).Google Scholar
R. v. Campbell [1986], 29 C.C.C. (3d) 7 (Can.).Google Scholar
R. v. Knowtes [1979] 51 C.C.C. (2d) 237 (Ont. C.A.), at 241.Google Scholar
R. v. Roy [1994], 70 O.A.C. 127; for an interesting discussion of the ramifications of this case, see Davis, Roy, , supra note 146, at 219–22.Google Scholar
Korn, D., “Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research,” JAMA, 284, no. 17 (2000): 2234–37; Morin, et al., supra note 11, at 81–83; Rettig, , supra note 11, at 140–43; Lewis, et al., supra note 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naylor, , supra note 47; Lewis, et al., supra note 11; Cho, M.K. et al., “Policies on Faculty Conflicts of Interest at US Universities,” JAMA, 284 (2000): 2237–38.Google Scholar
See, e.g., University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Offer and Acceptance of Finder's Fees for the Recruitment of Research Subjects, available at <http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/medicine/calendar/reg_offer.cfm>; University of Washington, Policy Prohibiting the Use of Enrollment Incentives in Human Subjects Research, available at <http://www.washington.edu/research/gcs/enrollment.html/>; University of Rochester Office of Research and Project Administration, University of Rochester Policy on Enrollment Incentive Payments by or to University Clinical Trial Researchers, available at <http://www.Rochester.edu/ORPA/policies/incenpay.pdf>; see also Van McCrary, S. et al., “A National Survey of Policies on Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research,” N. Engl. J. Med., 343 (2000): 1621, at 1623.Google Scholar
Van McCrary, , supra note 155.Google Scholar
Id. at 1623.Google Scholar
Id.; Lo, B. Wolf, L.E. Berkeley, A., “Conflict-of-interest Policies for Investigators in Clinical Trials,” N. Engl. J. Med., 343 (2000): 1616; Cho, M.K. et al., supra note 154; Boyd, Bero, , supra note 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Hirtle, Lemmens, Sprumont, , supra note 83.Google Scholar
Schomisch, J.W., “Senate Panel Told Federal Agency Needed for Human Protection in Clinical Trials,” RAPS News, April 24, 2002, available at <http://www.raps.org/news/senate04232002.cfm>; see also Shalala, , supra note 41, at 809.;+see+also+Shalala,+,+supra+note+41,+at+809.>Google Scholar
Research Revitalization Act of 2002, 107th Congress (2002) (Discussion Draft), at§ 2(a)(14).Google Scholar
Id. at § 2(b)(1–3).Google Scholar
Id. at Title II,§ 201(e)(2)(C) and (f)(2).Google Scholar
Id. at Title III,§ 301 (a) (1–2).Google Scholar
Id. at Title IV.§ 401 (a) (1–3).Google Scholar
Id. at Title IV,§ 401 (b) (1) and (c).Google Scholar
Id. at Title IV,§ 401 (d).Google Scholar
Id., Title V,§ 501 (a) and (e).Google Scholar
H.D. 917, 143 Sess. (Md. 2002).Google Scholar