Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:42:43.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic Research as Therapy: Implications of “Gene Therapy” for Informed Consent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Larry R. Churchill ,
Myra L. Collins ,
Nancy M.P. King ,
Stephen G. Pemberton  and
Keith A. Wailoo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In March 1996, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued the report Scientific Research: Continued Vigilance Critical to Protecting Human Subjects. It stated that “an inherent conflict of interest exists when physician-researchers include their patients in research protocols. If the physicians do not clearly distinguish between research and treatment in their attempt to inform subjects, the possible benefits of a study can be overemphasized and the risks minimized.” The report also acknowledged that “the line between research and treatment is not always clear to clinicians. Controversy exists regarding whether certain medical procedures should be categorized as research.”

This problem currently plagues gene transfer research. A few months prior to the GAO report, an ad hoc committee appointed by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Harold Varmus expressed similar concerns in its assessment of NIH investment in research on gene therapy.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , Spring 1998 , pp. 38 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1998

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

See General Accounting Office, Scientific Research: Continued Vigilance Critical to Protecting Human Subjects (Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, GAO/HEHS-96-72, Mar. 8, 1996).Google Scholar
Id. at 23.Google Scholar
Orkin, S.H. Motulsky, A.G., National Institutes of Health Ad Hoc Committee Report, Report and Recommendations of the Panel to Assess the N.I.H. Investment in Research on Gene Therapy (Dec. 7, 1995) <http://www.nih.gov/od/orda/panelrep.html>..>Google Scholar
Ross, G., “Gene Therapy in the United States: A Five-Year Status Report,” Human Gene Therapy, 7 (1996): At 1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Marcel, T. Grausz, J.D., “The TMC Worldwide Gene Therapy Enrollment Report, End 1996,” Human Gene Therapy, 8 (1997): 775–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Cook-Deegan, R., The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome Project (New York: W.W. Norton, 1994).Google Scholar
See Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, “Postwar Professional Standards and Practices of Human Experiments,” in The Human Radiation Experiments: Final Report of the President's Advisory Committee (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996): 74–96.Google Scholar
See Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, id.; Faden, R.R. Beauchamp, T.L., with King, N.M.P., A History and Theory of Informed Consent (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); and Rothman, D.J., Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed Medical Decision Making (New York: Basic Books, 1991).Google Scholar
See King, N.M.P., “Experimental Treatment: Oxymoron or Aspiration?,” Hastings Center Report, 25, no. 4 (1995): 6-15; and Goldner, J., “An Overview of Legal Controls on Human Experimentation and the Regulatory Implications of Taking Professor Katz Seriously,” St. Louis University Law Journal, 38 (1993): 63–134.Google Scholar
The Declaration of Helsinki appeared in 1964, and was revised in 1975, 1983, 1989, and 1996. We have consulted the original version, “Recommendations Guiding Medical Doctors in Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects,” N. Engl. J. Med., 271 (1964): 473; the 1975 revision by the 29th World Medical Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, in Beauchamp, T.L. Walters, L.W., eds., Contemporary Issues in Bioethics (Belmont: Wadsworth, 2nd ed., 1982): 511–12; and the 1996 revision by the 48th General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, in JAMA, 277 (1997): 925-26.Google Scholar
See Levine, R.J., Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2nd ed., 1986): At 9–10.Google Scholar
See Office for Protection from Research Risks, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, The Belmont Report (Washington, D.C.: OPRR Reports, ACHRE No. HHS-011795-A-2, Apr. 18, 1979) [hereinafter Belmont Report].Google Scholar
See id. at 3.Google Scholar
See King, , supra note 9.Google Scholar
See Levine, C., “Changing Views of Justice after Belmont: AIDS and the Inclusion of ‘Vulnerable’ Subjects,” in Vanderpool, H.Y., ed., The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21st Century (Frederick: University Publishing Group, 1996): 105-26; Epstein, S., Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); and Rothman, D.J. Edgar, H., “Scientific Rigor and Medical Realities: Placebo Trials in Cancer and AIDS Research,” in Fee, E. Fox, D.M., eds., AIDS: The Making of a Chronic Disease (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988): 194–206.Google Scholar
Epstein, , supra note 15, at 215–16.Google Scholar
See the innovative practices section in The Belmont Report. See Belmont Report, supra note 12.Google Scholar
See King, , supra note 9.Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. § 312.34 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 C.F.R. § 56.104c (1997).Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. § 50.23 (1996).Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. § 312.80-.88 (1997); and 21 C.F.R. § 314.500-.560 (1997).Google Scholar
See Marwick, C., “‘Desperate Use’ Gene Therapy Guidelines Ready,” JAMA, 269 (1993): 843; and Crigger, B.J., “The Quality of Mercy,” Hastings Center Report, 23, no. 3 (1993): 3.Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. § 50.24 (1996).Google Scholar
See Fox, R.C. Swazey, J.P., The Courage to Fail: A Social View of Organ Transplants and Dialysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978).Google Scholar
See Capron, A.M., “Informed Consent in Catastrophic Disease Research and Treatment,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 123 (1974): 341–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 349.Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, “Subject Interview Study,” in The Human Radiation Experiments, supra note 7, at 459–81.Google Scholar
See Katz, J., “Statement by Committee Member Jay Katz,” in The Human Radiation Experiments, supra note 7, at 543–48; and Appelbaum, P.S., “Examining the Ethics of Human Subjects Research,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 6 (1996): 283–87.Google Scholar
See Annas, G., “The Changing Landscape of Human Experimentation: Nuremberg, Helsinki and Beyond,” Health Matrix, 2 (1992): At 134 (quoting Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as saying that the proper goal of clinical trials is “not to deliver therapy,” but to “answer a scientific question so that the drug can be available for everybody once you've established safety and efficacy.”).Google Scholar
See Annas, G.J., “Questing for Grails: Duplicity, Betrayal and Self-Deception in Postmodern Medical Research,” Journal of Contemporary Health Law Policy, 12 (1996): 310-11; and Mendell, J.R., “Myoblast Transfer in the Treatment of Duchenne's Dystrophy,” N. Engl. J. Med., 333 (1995): 832–38.Google Scholar
See Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, supra note 28.Google Scholar
Faden, Beauchamp, , with King, , supra note 8.Google Scholar
See Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, supra note 7.Google Scholar
See Rothman, , supra note 8.Google Scholar
See Katz, J., The Silent World of Doctor and Patient (New York: Free Press, 1984): At 2.Google Scholar
See id.; and Katz, J., “Human Experimentation and Human Rights,” St. Louis University Law Journal, 38 (1993): 28–29.Google Scholar
See King, , supra note 9.Google Scholar
See “Appendix M. The points to consider in the design and submission of protocols for the transfer of recombinant DNA molecules into the genome of one or more human subjects of the NIH guidelines for research involving recombinant DNA molecules,” 59 Fed. Reg. 34496 (July 5, 1994).Google Scholar
See Blau, H.M. Springer, M.L., “Gene Therapy: A Novel Form of Drug Delivery,” N. Engl. J. Med., 333 (1995): 1204–07.Google Scholar
See Juengst, E. Walters, L., “Gene Therapy: II. Ethical and Social Issues,” in Reich, W.T., ed., Encyclopedia of Bioethics (New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan, rev. ed., 1995): 914–22.Google Scholar
Miller, H.I., Editorial, “Human Gene Therapy: Part of a Therapeutic Continuum,” Human Gene Therapy, 1 (1990): At 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, H.I., “Overregulation is an Unnecessary Hindrance to Human Gene Therapy,” Human Gene Therapy, 6 (1995): At 1361.Google Scholar
Gene therapy is also portrayed today as a venture and enterprise. See, for example, Carey, J., “The $600 Million Horse Race,” Business Week, Aug. 23, 1994, at 68; and Marshall, E., “Gene Therapy's Growing Pains,” Science, 269 (Aug. 25, 1995): 1050–55.Google Scholar
See Lyon, J. Gorner, P., Altered Fates: Gene Therapy and the Retooling of Human Life (New York: W.W. Norton, 1995): At 105–294.Google Scholar
See Anderson, W.F., “Human Gene Therapy,” Science, 256 (May 8, 1992): 810.Google Scholar
See Culliton, B.J., “ADA Gene Therapy Enters the Competition,” Science, 249 (Aug. 31, 1990): 975.Google Scholar
See Anderson, , supra note 46.Google Scholar
See Marshall, E., “Jury Still Out on Pioneering Treatment,” Science, 269 (Aug. 25, 1992): At 1051; and Blaese, R.M., “T Lymphocyte-Directed Gene Therapy for ADA-SOD: Initial Trial Results After 4 Years,” Science, 270 (Oct. 20, 1995): 475–80.Google Scholar
Marshall, , id. at 1051.Google Scholar
Id. at 1050.Google Scholar
See Andrews, L.B., “Past as Prologue: Sobering Thoughts on Genetic Enthusiasm,” Seton Hall Law Review, 27 (1997): 893–918.Google Scholar
Marshall, E., “Less Hype, More Biology Needed for Gene Therapy,” Science, 270 (Dec. 15, 1995): At 1751.Google Scholar
See 59 Fed. Reg. 34496 (July 5, 1994).Google Scholar
See Marshall, E., “One Less Hoop for Gene Therapy,” Science, 265 (July 29, 1994): 599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Chase, G.A., Letter, “Regulation of Human Gene Therapy,” Science, 269 (June 5, 1995): At 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Goldner, , supra note 9.Google Scholar