Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:52:10.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Law of Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Establishing Researchers' Duties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Susan M. Wolf ,
Jordan Paradise  and
Charlisse Caga-Anan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Technology has outpaced the capacity of researchers performing research on human participants to interpret all data generated and handle those data responsibly. This poses a critical challenge to existing rules governing human subjects research. The technologies used in research to generate images, scans, and data can now produce so much information that there is significant potential for incidental findings (IFs), findings generated in the course of research but beyond the aims of the study. Neuroimaging scans may visualize the entire brain and even the entire head; computed tomography (CT) colonography research may visualize the entire torso, from the base of the lungs to the pubis; genetics studies may reveal “extra” and sometimes unwanted information about the family, such as misattributed paternity and undisclosed adoption; and genomic microarray research increasingly involves whole-genome analysis (WGA) revealing an individual’s complete genotype, with enormous potential for uncovering unexpected information about an individual’s genetics and risks of developing future conditions.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , Summer 2008 , pp. 361 - 383
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

The Common Rule governs research on human beings funded by the federal government or conducted by institutions providing the federal government with an assurance that all research conducted there will follow the federal rules. See 45 C.F.R. § 46.101 (2007). Sixteen federal agencies subscribe to that rule. See Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Common Rule Agencies/Departments, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/related.html#com> (last visited January 14, 2008). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) follows a variant. See 21 C.F.R. Parts 50, 56 (2007).+(last+visited+January+14,+2008).+The+Food+and+Drug+Administration+(FDA)+follows+a+variant.+See+21+C.F.R.+Parts+50,+56+(2007).>Google Scholar
Wolf, S. M. et al., “Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balkin, J. M. and Levinson, S., “The Processes of Constitutional Change: From Partisan Entrenchment to the National Surveillance State,” Fordham Law Review 75, no. 2 (2006): 489–535.Google Scholar
Lawrenz, F. and Sobotka, S., “Empirical Analysis of Current Approaches to Incidental Findings,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illes, J. et al., “Ethical Consideration of Incidental Findings on Adult Brain MRI in Research,” Neurology 62, no. 6 (2004): 888–890, at 889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Vernooij, M. W. et al., “Incidental Findings on Brain MRI in the General Population,” N. Engl. J. Med. 357, no. 18 (2007):1821–1828; Kumra, S. et al., “Ethical and Practical Considerations in the Management of Incidental Findings in Pediatric MRI Studies,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 45, no. 8 (2006): 1000–1006, at 1002; Alphs, H. H. et al., “Findings on Brain MRI from Research Studies of Occupational Exposure to Known Neurotoxicants,” American Journal of Roentgenology 187, no. 4 (2006): 1043–1047, at 1044; see also Katzman, G. L., Dagher, A. P., and Patronas, N. J., “Incidental Findings on Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging from 1000 Asymptomatic Volunteers” JAMA 282, no. 1 (1999): 36–39; Kim, B. S. et al., “Incidental Findings on Pediatric MR Images of the Brain,” American Journal of Neuroradiology 23, no. 10 (2002): 1674–1677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Gluecker, T. M. et al., “Extracolonic Findings at CT Colonography: Evaluation of Prevalence and Cost in a Screening Population,” Gastroenterology 124, no. 4 (2003): 911–916; Hara, A. K. et al., “Incidental Extracolonic Findings at CT Colonography,” Radiology 215, no. 2 (2000): 353–357; Yee, J. et al., “Extracolonic Abnormalities Discovered Incidentally at CT Colonography in a Male Population,” Radiology 236, no. 2 (2005): 519–526.10.1053/gast.2003.50158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K. G., “How Well Does Paternity Confidence Match Actual Paternity? Evidence from Worldwide Nonpaternity Rates,” Current Anthropology 47, no. 3 (2006): 513–520, at 513; McEwen, J. E., “Genetic Information, Ethics, and Information Relating to Biological Parenthood,” in Murray, T. H. and Mehlman, M. J., eds., Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues in Biotechnology, vol.1 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000): 356–363, at 359–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Lawrenz, and Sobotka, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
See Wolf, et al., supra note 2.Google Scholar
We urge that principal investigator bears the ultimate responsibility for IFs. Other players in the research enterprise also shoulder obligations to plan for and manage IFs. For example, IRBs should review the informed consent plan and forms and the research protocol to ensure that proper processes are in place to deal with IFs. Funding agencies should help fund the costs of managing IFs appropriately in research.Google Scholar
See Wilfond, B. S. and Carpenter, K. J., “Incidental Findings in Pediatric Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 332–340.10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00277.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Additional Protections for Children Involved as Subjects in Research, 45 C.F.R. subpart D, §§ 46.401 et seq. (2007); Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations, 21 C.F.R. subpart D, §§ 50.50 et seq. (2007).Google Scholar
While there are currently no specific federal regulations regarding the protection of subjects with diminished capacity, several governmental policy bodies have addressed the issue. See National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), Research Involving Persons with Mental Disorders That May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity (Rockville, MD: December, 1998); National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee (NHRPAC) Workgroup on Decisional Incapacity, Final Report on Informed Consent and the Decisionally Impaired, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/nhrpac/documents/nhrpac10.pdf> (last visited April 7, 2008); Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP), Subcommittee on Inclusion of Individuals with Impaired Decision-Making in Research (SIIIDR), available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/subcommittees.html> (last visited April 7, 2008).+(last+visited+April+7,+2008);+Office+for+Human+Research+Protections+(OHRP),+Secretary's+Advisory+Committee+on+Human+Research+Protections+(SACHRP),+Subcommittee+on+Inclusion+of+Individuals+with+Impaired+Decision-Making+in+Research+(SIIIDR),+available+at++(last+visited+April+7,+2008).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., Morreim, E. H., “Litigation in Clinical Research: Malpractice Doctrine Versus Research Realities,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32, no. 3 (2004): 474–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For commentary on researchers’ traditionally limited duties of care, see, e.g., Richardson, H. S. and Belsky, L., “The Ancillary-Care Responsibilities of Medical Researchers: An Ethical Framework for Thinking about the Clinical Care that Researchers Owe Their Subjects,” Hastings Center Report 34, no. 1 (2004): 25–33. We discuss in text cases such as Grimes that are among the very few cases finding a researcher duty of care owed directly to the research participant.10.2307/3528248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Katz, J., “Human Experimentation and Human Rights,” Saint Louis University Law Journal 38, no. 1 (1993/94): 7–27, at 17.Google Scholar
See Richardson, and Belsky, , supra note 16.Google Scholar
Milstein, A., “Research Malpractice and the Issue of Incidental Findings,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 356–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Ravitsky, V. and Wilfond, B. S., “Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants,” American Journal of Bioethics 6, no. 6 (2006): 8–17, at 8–9; Ravitsky, V. and Wilfond, B. S., “Response to Open Peer Commentaries on ‘Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants’: Defining Clinical Utility and Revisiting the Role of Relationships,” American Journal of Bioethics 6, no. 6 (2006): W10–W12; Parker, L. S., “Rethinking Respect for Persons Enrolled in Research,” American Society for Bioethics and Humanities Exchange 9, no. 2 (2006): 1, 6–7; Shalowitz, D. I. and Miller, F. G., “Disclosing Individual Results of Clinical Research,” JAMA 294, no. 6 (2005): 737–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Kohane, I. S. et al., “Reestablishing the Researcher-Patient Compact,” Science 316, no. 5826 (2007): 836–837; see Shalowitz, and Miller, , supra note 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Shalowitz, and Miller, , supra note 20, at 738 (describing existing policies that would limit disclosure of individual results).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Clayton, E. W. and Ross, L. F., Letter, “Implications of Disclosing Individual Results of Clinical Research,” JAMA 295, no. 6 (2006): 37; Dressler, L. G. and Juengst, E. T., “Thresholds and Boundaries in the Disclosure of Individual Genetic Research Results,” American Journal of Bioethics 6, no. 6 (2006): 18–20.Google Scholar
See Clayton, and Ross, , supra note 23.Google Scholar
Id.; Parker, , supra note 20, at 7.Google Scholar
See Lawrenz, and Sobotka, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
See Ossorio, P. N., “Letting the Gene Out of the Bottle: A Comment on Returning Individual Research Results to Participants,” American Journal of Bioethics 6, no. 6 (2006): 24–25, at 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Parker, , supra note 20, at 1.Google Scholar
See Cho, M. K., “Understanding Incidental Findings in the Context of Genetics & Genomics,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Department of Health and Human Services, Guidance on Research Involving Coded Private Information or Biological Specimens, Rockville, MD, 2004, available at <www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/cdebiol.pdf> (last visited April 7, 2008).+(last+visited+April+7,+2008).>Google Scholar
See Wolf, et al., supra note 2, at Table III.Google Scholar
See Clayton, E. W., “Incidental Findings in Genetics Research Using Archived DNA,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See The Database on Genotype and Phenotype (dbGaP), available at <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=gap> (last visited April 7, 2008); see also National Institutes of Health, Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS), Federal Register 72, no. 166 (2007): 49, 290–97, available at <http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7–17030.pdf> (last visited April 7, 2008).+(last+visited+April+7,+2008);+see+also+National+Institutes+of+Health,+Policy+for+Sharing+of+Data+Obtained+in+NIH+Supported+or+Conducted+Genome-Wide+Association+Studies+(GWAS),+Federal+Register+72,+no.+166+(2007):+49,+290–97,+available+at++(last+visited+April+7,+2008).>Google Scholar
The fMRI Data Center asks submitting authors to submit the following data: (1) raw, reconstructed image volumes from the scanner; (2) pre-processed images used for statistical analyses and detailed descriptions of the image processing steps that were applied; (3) high-resolution anatomical images from all subjects; and (4) image volumes of final statistical results for each subject as well as statistical group maps. See fMRIDC Data Center, “Frequently Asked Questions,” available at <http://www.fmridc.org/f/fmridc/help/faq.html> (last visited March 28, 2008).+(last+visited+March+28,+2008).>Google Scholar
See 45 C.F.R. § 46.101 (b) (4) (2007) (exempting research in which the only involvement of “human subjects” is “the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens…if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects”); OHRP, supra note 30.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Inst., 782 A.2d 807 (Md. 2001).Google Scholar
See Section IIB, infra.Google Scholar
McGuire, A. L., Caulfield, T., and Cho, M. K., “Research Ethics and the Challenge of Whole-Genome Sequencing,” Nature Genetics 9, no. 2 (2008): 152–156, at 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.524 (2007); National Institutes of Health (NIH), Protecting Personal Health Information in Research: Understanding the HIPAA Privacy Rule, Access to Protected Health Information, available at <http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pr_08.asp#8j> (last visited April 7, 2008). See also Section IIID below.+(last+visited+April+7,+2008).+See+also+Section+IIID+below.>Google Scholar
See NIH, supra note 39; National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), Federal Policy Recommendations Including HIPAA, available at <http://www.genome.gov/11510216> (last visited April 7, 2008).+(last+visited+April+7,+2008).>Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 160.102 (2007) (defining a covered entity as a health plan, health care clearinghouse, or health care provider that transmits any health information electronically in connection with a covered transaction).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.524 (a) (iii) (2007) (exempting PHI maintained by a covered entity subject to CLIA when access is prohibited by law (§ 164.524 (a) (iii) (A)) or when a covered entity is exempt from CLIA under 42 C.F.R. § 493.3 (b) (2)).Google Scholar
See Grimes, 782 A.2d 807. The litigation was followed by a larger discussion of the research that was at the center of litigation. See, e.g., National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Ethical Considerations for Research on Housing-Related Hazards Involving Children (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2005).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Mamourian, A., “Incidental Findings on Research Functional MRI Images: Should We Look?” American Journal of Neuroradiology 25, no. 4 (2004): 520–522 (arguing that because research participants are subjected to MR by researchers, researchers should respond to participant expectations); Grossman, R. I. and Bernat, J. L., “Incidental Research Imaging Findings: Pandora's Costly Box,” Neurology 62, no. 6 (2004): 849–850 (arguing that ethically researchers must consider subjects’ trust that researchers will pick up an “important abnormality”); Illes, J. et al., “Ethical and Practical Considerations in Managing Incidental Findings in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” Brain and Cognition 50, no. 3 (2002): 358–365 (arguing that the presence of “clinically important abnormalities” is significant and that their detection and management are key to research participant welfare); Illes, J. et al., “Discovery and Disclosure of Incidental Findings in Neuroimaging Research,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 20, no. 5 (2004): 743–747 (arguing that disclosure duties apply to all professionals in clinical and research settings regardless of professional degree); Illes, J. et al., “Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research,” Science 311, no. 5762 (2006): 783–784 (arguing for disclosure of suspicious findings based on research participants' autonomy and interests, as well as reciprocity and participant expectations); see Richardson, and Belsky, , supra note 16 (arguing that fMRI researchers have a responsibility based on ancillary-care obligations to read and follow-up on fMRI scans that may reveal potentially life-threatening findings).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Grossman, and Bernat, , supra note 44, at 849; Illes, et al., “Ethical and Practical Considerations in Managing Incidental Findings in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” supra note 44, at 359.Google Scholar
See Grossman, and Bernat, , supra note 44, at 849.Google Scholar
See Illes, et al., “Ethical and Practical Considerations in Managing Incidental Findings in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” supra note 44, at 359.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F., Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001): at 174.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelinesfor the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, Federal Register 44 (1979): 23, 192–97 [hereinafter Belmont Report].Google Scholar
National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), Ethical and Policy Issues in International Research: Clinical Trials in Developing Countries (Rockville, MD: 2001): At 59. The discussion of reciprocity centers on the provision of post-trial medical interventions to individuals participating in clinical trials in developing countries. Id.Google Scholar
See Illes, et al., “Ethical and Legal Considerations in Managing Incidental Findings in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” supra note 44, at 359.Google Scholar
Grossman, and Bernat, , supra note 44, at 849.Google Scholar
On the therapeutic misconception, see, e.g., Applbaum, P. S. et al., “False Hopes and Best Data: Consent to Research and the Therapeutic Misconception,” Hastings Center Report 17, no. 2 (1987): 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Richardson, and Belsky, , supra note 16.Google Scholar
Id., at 27.Google Scholar
Id., at 32.Google Scholar
See Illes, et al., “Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research,” supra note 44, at 783.Google Scholar
See Belmont Report, supra note 50.Google Scholar
See Shalowitz, and Miller, , supra note 20, at 738.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See supra, note 1.Google Scholar
See Mello, M. M., “The Rise of Litigation in Human Subjects Research,” Annals of Internal Medicine 139, no. 1 (2003): 40–45; Hoffman, S. and Berg, J. W., “The Suitability of IRB Liability,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 67, no. 2 (2005): 365–427, at 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For criteria for IRB approval (including risk minimization and risk-benefit assessment), see 45 C.F.R. § 46.111 (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 56.111 (2007). For elements of informed consent, see 45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 50.25 (2007). Note that federal rules on “adverse events” do not appear to address IFs, as the condition revealed by an IF is not caused by the research. See generally Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Department of Health and Human Services, Guidance on Reviewing and Reporting Unanticipated Problems Involving Risks to Subjects or Others and Adverse Events, January 15, 2007, at 8, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/AdvEvntGuid.pdf> (last visited April 7, 2008).+(last+visited+April+7,+2008).>Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.111 (a) (1) (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 56.111 (a) (1) (2007).Google Scholar
See Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Institutional Review Board Guidebook (1993): At ch. 5 (“Biomedical and Behavioral Research: An Overview”), section H. (“Human Genetic Research”), available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_chapter5ii.htm#h12> (last visited April 7, 2008).+(last+visited+April+7,+2008).>Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.111 (a) (2) (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 56.111 (a) (2) (2007).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (a) (2007); see also 21 C.F.R. § 50.25 (a) (2007).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (b) (2007); see also 21 C.F.R. § 50.25 (b) (2007).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.109 (b) (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 56.109 (b) (2007).10.1353/cj.2007.0029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 50.20 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 50.20 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Department of Health and Services, OHRP's Compliance Oversight Procedures for Evaluating Institutions, October 19, 2005, at 3–4 (describing OHRP's legal authority), available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/compliance/ohrpcomp.pdf> (last visited April 7, 2008). (last visited April 7, 2008).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=See+Office+for+Human+Research+Protections+(OHRP),+Department+of+Health+and+Services,+OHRP's+Compliance+Oversight+Procedures+for+Evaluating+Institutions,+October+19,+2005,+at+3–4+(describing+OHRP's+legal+authority),+available+at++(last+visited+April+7,+2008).>Google Scholar
Id., at 5–7; see also 21 C.F.R. Part 56 Subpart E (2007), “Administrative Actions for Noncompliance.”Google Scholar
See, e.g., Wright v. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (W.D. Wa. 2002); Abdullahi v. Pfizer, No. 01 Civ. 8118(WHP), 2005 WL 1870811, at *11 n.4 (S.D.N.Y.) (“[T]he FDA regulations do not provide any private right of action.”) (citing Summit Tech. v. High-Line Med. Instruments Co., 933 F. Supp. 918, 932–33 (C.D. Cal. 1996); PDK Lab. v. Friedlander, 103 F.3d 1105, 1113 (2d. Cir. 1997)).Google Scholar
Whitlock v. Duke University, 637 F. Supp. 1463, 1475 (M.D.N.C. 1986).Google Scholar
See Robertson v. McGee, No. 01CV60, 2002 WL 535045, at *3 (N.D. Okla. 2002) (citing Robinett v. U.S., 62 F.3d 1433, at *1 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (unpublished); Washington v. Catalona, 437 F. Supp. 2d 985, 1000 (E.D. M.O. 2006)).Google Scholar
See Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 810 (1986).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Wright, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1286; Robertson, 2002 WL 535045.Google Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2007).Google Scholar
269 F. Supp. 2d at 1289.Google Scholar
Robertson, 2002 WL 535045, at *3 (citing Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 617 (1978)).Google Scholar
Id.; Wright, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1286, at 1290.Google Scholar
Wright, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1286, at 1290 n.1 (citing S. Rep. No. 93–381, at 90 (1973)).Google Scholar
Id., at 1290.Google Scholar
437 F. Supp. 2d 985, 1000 (E.D. Mo. 2006).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Washington v. Catalona, 490 F.3d 667, 677 (8th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 1203 (U.S. 2008).Google Scholar
For a comprehensive discussion of common law doctrines used in medical research litigation, see Morreim, E. H., “Medical Research Litigation and Malpractice Tort Doctrine: Courts on a Learning Curve,” Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy 4, no. 1 (2003): 1–86. For a discussion of claims brought by research subjects, see Mello, et al., supra note 63.Google Scholar
Furrow, B. R. et al., Health Law, 2d ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Group, 2000): At 260 (hornbook).Google Scholar
See Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts (St. Paul, MN: American Law Institute Publishers, 1965): 2, at 116 (§ 314: Duty to Act for the Protection of Others), 118 (§ 314A: Special Relations Giving Rise to Duty to Aid or Protect).Google Scholar
The court stated that as a matter of state law, a duty of informed consent created by federal regulation “translates into a duty of care arising out of the unique relationship that is researcher-subject, as opposed to doctor-patient.” Grimes, 782 A.2d 807, at 849.Google Scholar
Id., at 858.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Morreim, , supra note 89, at 19–27. Morreim criticizes one famous case, Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., which was limited to recognizing a breach of the fiduciary duty. Id., at 23–24 (citing Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990)).Google Scholar
Id., at 23–24 (citing Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990)).Google Scholar
Id., at 28–29.Google Scholar
Id., at 29.Google Scholar
637 F. Supp. 1463, 1467 (M.D.N.C. 1986).Google Scholar
Id., at 1470–71.Google Scholar
Id., at 1464–66.Google Scholar
Id., at 1471 (citing 45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (a) (2) (1985)).Google Scholar
Id,. at 1472.Google Scholar
Whitlock v. Duke University, 829 F.2d 1340 (4th Cir. 1987).Google Scholar
See Blaz v. Michael Reese Hosp. Found., 74 F. Supp. 2d 803 (N.D. Ill. 1999); Grimes, 782 A.2d 807, at 846. The Grimes court stated, “[W]e know of no law, nor have we been directed to any applicable in Maryland courts, that provides that the parties to a scientific study, because it is a scientific, health-related study, cannot be held to have entered into special relationships with the subjects of the study that can create duties, including duties, the breach of which may give rise to negligence claims.” 782 A.2d 807, at 835.Google Scholar
See Grimes, 782 A.2d 807, at 812.Google Scholar
Id., at 825–26, 828–29.Google Scholar
Id., at 834–35. The Maryland Court of Appeals found that the lower courts were incorrect to rule that “as a matter of law a research entity conducting an ongoing non-therapeutic scientific study does not have a duty to warn…when the researcher has knowledge of the potential for harm to the subject and the subject is unaware of the danger.” Id., at 818–19.Google Scholar
See Grimes, 782 A.2d 807, at 851.Google Scholar
Id., at 846.Google Scholar
Id. at 849, 858.Google Scholar
Id. at 849.Google Scholar
Id. at 858.Google Scholar
See Blaz, 74 F. Supp. 2d 803.Google Scholar
Id., at 804.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. In 1979 Dr. Schneider and the Hospital had submitted a research proposal to NIH stating that a study based on the program had showed “strong evidence” of a connection between x-ray treatments such as those received by Blaz and various sorts of tumors. Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. (quoting Kokoyachuk v. Aeroquip Corp., 526 N.E.2d 607, 610 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)).Google Scholar
Id., at 806–07.Google Scholar
Id., at 805. The Maryland court in Grimes presented factors to consider when determining negligence: “(1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss; and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant's breach of the duty.” Grimes, 782 A.2d 807, at 841–42.Google Scholar
Id. (citing Kirk v. Michael Reese Hosp., 513 N.E.2d 387, 396 (Ill. 1987)).Google Scholar
Id. (citing U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169, 173 (2d Cir. 1947)).Google Scholar
See Grimes, 782 A.2d 807, at 814. On the scope of the duties recognized in Grimes, see, e.g., Hoffman, D. E. and Rothenberg, K. H., “Whose Duty Is It Anyway? The Kennedy Krieger Opinion and Its Implications for Public Health Research,” Journal of Health Care Law and Policy 6, no. 1 (2002): 109–147.Google Scholar
Kulynych, J., “Legal and Ethical Issues in Neuroimaging Research: Human Subjects Protections, Medical Privacy, and the Public Communication of Research Results,” Brain and Cognition 50, no. 3 (2002): 345–357, at 349.10.1016/S0278-2626(02)00518-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Grimes, 782 A.2d 807, at 849.Google Scholar
Id., at 849–50.Google Scholar
Vodopest v. McGregor, 913 P.2d 779, 861 (Wash. 1996).Google Scholar
Mastroianni, A. C., “Liability, Regulation and Policy in Surgical Innovation: The Cutting Edge of Research and Therapy,” Health Matrix 16, no. 2 (2006): 351–442, at 413 (citing Jansson, R. L., Note, “Researcher Liability for Negligence in Human Subjects Research: Informed Consent and Researcher Malpractice Actions,” Washington Law Review 78, no. 1 (2003): 229–263).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Whitlock, 829 F.2d 1340, at 1475; Grimes, 782 A.2d 807, at 851.Google Scholar
Pate v. Threlkel, 661 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 1995).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 282.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Schroeder v. Perkel, 432 A.2d 834, 839 (N.J. 1981).Google Scholar
Tarasoff v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976).Google Scholar
551 P.2d 334, 342 (Cal. 1976).Google Scholar
See Restatement, Third, of Torts, Liability for physical harm § 26 (2005). The classic article on loss of a chance is King, J. H., “Causation, Valuation, and Chance in Personal Injury Torts Involving Preexisting Conditions and Future Consequences,” Yale Law Journal 90, no. 6 (1981): 1353–1397. See also Fischer, D. A., “Tort Recovery for Loss of a Chance,” Wake Forest Law Review 36, no. 3 (2001): 605–655; Bruer, R. S., “Loss of a Chance as a Cause of Action in Medical Malpractice,” Missouri Law Review 59, no. 4 (1994): 969–996.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Fischer, , supra note 142.Google Scholar
Id., at 610.Google Scholar
See Furrow, et al., supra note 90, at 304.Google Scholar
See Evans, B. J., “What Will It Take to Reap the Clinical Benefits of Pharmacogenetics?” Food & Drug Law Journal 61, no. 4 (2006): 753–794, at 762–763; see Hoffman, and Berg, , supra note 63, at 390 (discussing loss of a chance when an IRB improperly approves research in which a subject takes part); Saver, R. S., “Medical Research and Intangible Harm,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 74, no. 3 (2006): 941–1012, at 980 (calling these claims “speculative”).Google Scholar
Hoffman, and Berg, , supra note 63, at 390.Google Scholar
Johnston, C. and Kaye, J., “Does the UK Biobank Have a Legal Obligation to Feedback Individual Findings to Participants?” Medical Law Review 12, no. 3 (2004): 239–267, at 258. “If there is a breach of this duty and the harm eventuates, that is the participant develops symptoms of the genetic disease, or dies prematurely, then the issue is whether the breach of duty (failure to warn), has caused the harm.” Id.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 258.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Morreim, , supra note 89, at 35–37.Google Scholar
264 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1075 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (citing Fla. Stat. § 760.40 (2002)).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
647 N.W.2d 265, 270 (Wis. App. 2002).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Ande v. Rock, 647 N.W.2d 265, 265 (Wis. App. 2002).Google Scholar
See Morreim, , supra note 89, at 37.Google Scholar
See Saver, , supra note 146. But see Grimes, 782 A.2d 807, at 843 (applying a contract analysis to informed consent forms).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Grimes, 782 A.2d 807, at 843.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Vodopest, 913 P.2d 779, at 781.Google Scholar
See Grimes, 782 A.2d 807, at 843.Google Scholar
Id., at 843.Google Scholar
Id., at 844.Google Scholar
913 P.2d 779, 781 (Wash. 1996). Additionally, the defendant did not inform the plaintiff that the form had been rejected by the IRB. Id., at 782.Google Scholar
See Vodopest, 913 P.2d 779, at 785.Google Scholar
Id., at 785.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 789.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 50.20 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See 45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 50.25 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (2007) (general requirements for informed consent); see also 21 C.F.R. § 5.25 (2007).Google Scholar
Parker, L. S., “The Future of Incidental Findings: Should They Be Viewed as Benefits?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Belmont Report, supra note 50.Google Scholar
See OHRP, supra note 66.Google Scholar
Cf. id. Psychological harms may also be due to the uncertain nature of genetic information, which is usually expressed in probabilities.Google Scholar
See Kulynych, , supra note 129, at 349; see also Burke, W. et al., “Categorizing Genetics Tests to Identify their Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 106, no. 3 (2001): 233–240.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Anderlik, M. A. and Rothstein, M. A., “Privacy and Confidentiality of Genetic Information: What Rules for the New Science?” Annual Review of Genomic and Human Genetics 2, no. 1 (2001): 401–433; Godard, B. et al., “Genetic Information and Testing in Insurance and Employment: Technical, Social and Ethical Issues,” European Journal of Human Genetics 11, Supplement 2 (2003): S123–S142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kulynych, , supra note 129, at 352.Google Scholar
See Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Institutional Review Board Guidebook, at ch. 3 (“Basic IRB Review”), available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_chapter3.htm> (last visited April 7, 2008).+(last+visited+April+7,+2008).>Google Scholar
See Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR), National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Protection of Human Subjects: Categories of Research That May Be Reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) through an Expedited Review Procedure, Federal Register 63 (November 9, 1998): 60, 364–67, at 60,366, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/expedited98.htm> (last visited April 7, 2008).+(last+visited+April+7,+2008).>Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.109 (b) (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 56.109 (c) (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
On this right not to know, see, e.g., National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee Working Group on Genetics, IRB Guidebook Chapter on Human Genetics Research, Draft 2, June 27, 2002, at 12, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/nhrpac/documents/nhrpac13.pdf> (last visited April 7, 2008).+(last+visited+April+7,+2008).>Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 50.20 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Illes, et al., “Ethical and Practical Considerations in Managing Incidental Findings in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” supra note 44, at 362.Google Scholar
As discussed above, courts may decide that the research participant had a right to this information. The human subjects regulations preserve any legal right that courts choose to recognize. See 45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 50.20 (2007). At least one state court has held that, insofar as a researcher attempts to obtain from the research participant a release from responsibility for negligent acts performed in the medical research, enforcing the agreement would violate public policy. See Vodopest, 913 P.2d 779, at 785.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (b) (3) (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 50.25 (b) (5) (2007).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (b) (5) (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 50.25 (b) (5) (2007).Google Scholar
Whitlock v. Duke University, 637 F. Supp. 1463, 1472 (M.D.N.C. 1986).Google Scholar
See Illes, et al., “Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research,” supra note 44.Google Scholar
See Katz, , supra note 17, at 12–18; Illes, et al., “Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research,” supra note 44; Richardson, and Belsky, , supra note 16.Google Scholar
See Shalowitz, and Miller, , supra note 20, at 738.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Illes, et al., supra note 5; see also Wolf, et al., supra note 2.Google Scholar
See 45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (b) (5) (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 50.25 (b) (5) (2007); Belmont Report, supra note 50 (“risks should be reduced to those necessary to achieve the research objective”).Google Scholar
See Wolf, et al., supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Kulynych, , supra note 129, at 349.Google Scholar
See Grimes, 782 A.2d, at 851.Google Scholar
Id., at 846.Google Scholar
See Blaz, 74 F. Supp. at 805 (quoting Kokoyachuck v. Aeroquip Corp., 536 N.E.2d 607, 610 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)).Google Scholar
See Wolf, et al., supra note 2, at section III E.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Mamourian, , supra note 44, at 521 (arguing that separating out the significant from the non-significant is very difficult even for imagers).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.111 (a) (7) (2007); 21 C.F.R. § 56.111 (a) (7) (2007).Google Scholar
See 45 C.F.R. §§ 160 et seq. (2007); Illes, et al., “Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research,” supra note 44, at 784.Google Scholar
The HIPAA Privacy Rule applies to covered entities and “protected health information” as defined in 45 C.F.R. §§ 160.102–.103 (2007).Google Scholar
See National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, Protecting Personal Health Information in Research: Understanding the HIPAA Privacy Rule, 2003, available at <http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pdf/HIPAA_Booklet_4-14-2003.pdf> (last visited April 7, 2008); Illes, et al., “Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research,” supra note 44, at 784.+(last+visited+April+7,+2008);+Illes,+et+al.,+“Incidental+Findings+in+Brain+Imaging+Research,”+supra+note+44,+at+784.>Google Scholar
See 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502 (d), 164.514 (a)-(c) (2007); see Illes, et al., “Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research,” supra note 44, at 784.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.501 (2007); see also Illes, et al., “Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research,” supra note 44, at 784 (“[Communication even with identifiers may well be allowed under state and federal privacy law because it is for the purpose of potential treatment.”)Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 160.103 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Note that another potential liability concern is that of the consultant, who may be reluctant to evaluate the IF based on research scans or data, which may not be of clinical grade or optimized for clinical diagnosis. See, e.g., Kulynych, J. J., “The Regulation of MR Neuroimaging Research: Disentangling the Gordian Knot,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 33, nos. 2–3 (2007): 295–317, at 314–315. While we do not undertake to analyze this concern here, it is important to recognize that the consultant is not being asked for a clinical diagnosis; the consultant is merely being asked to say whether he or she also sees an IF and whether it appears to have potential clinical or reproductive significance.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kulynych, , supra note 129, at 348–349.Google Scholar
Id., at 348.Google Scholar
See Wolf, et al., supra note 2.Google Scholar
See OHRP, supra note 66.Google Scholar
For a different view, see Richardson, and Belsky, , supra note 16.Google Scholar