J Korean Med Sci.  2017 Dec;32(12):1910-1916. 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.12.1910.

Legislative Issues in Disclosing Financial Conflicts of Interest to Participants in Biomedical Research: Effectiveness and Methodology

• Kim JS

• KMID: 2396365
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.12.1910

Abstract

This research focuses on the analysis regarding disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) after Gelsinger v. University of Pennsylvania (Penn). The main legal issue was that the participants did not have enough opportunity to make an autonomous decision about participating in the research because he was not informed about the researchers' and the institution's substantial FCOI. The disclosure system was adopted by the Code of Federal Regulations. Under the regulation, researchers and institutions need to report FCOI over $5,000 to the institution, and the internal review boards have to report to the federal authority if needed. In case of human research, the disclosure to Food and Drug Administration is mandatory. FCOI disclosure system would help participants to make an autonomous decision, and increase trust to the research process and researchers. Moreover, the system would let researchers keep fiduciary duty while (possibly) lowering legal liability in case of a lawsuit. There were discussions about the disclosure methodology in the United States. However, there have not been a lot of discussions in Korea even after the "Humidifier Disinfectant" case. Therefore, new legislations need to be considered. First, the system requires disclosure funded by not only government but also private institutions. Second, like California Supreme Court, the subject would be reviewed under the reasonable person standard by participants, including patents, equity, and stock. Third, the disclosure needs to include simple or brief explanation to the FCOI to be better understood by the participants. Fourth, the disclosure should be in the informed consent process.

Keyword

FCOI; Legislation; Biomedical Research; FDA; Regulation

MeSH Terms

California
Disclosure
Financial Management
Humans
Informed Consent
Korea
Liability, Legal
Linear Energy Transfer
Pennsylvania
Social Control, Formal
United States
United States Food and Drug Administration

Reference

1. Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329:573–576.

2. Gatter R. Walking the talk of trust in human subjects research: the challenge of regulating financial conflicts of interest. Emory Law J. 2003; 52:327–401.

3. Stolberg SG. The biotech death of Jesse Gelsinger [Internet]. accessed on 6 July 2017. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/28/magazine/the-biotech-death-of-jesse-gelsinger.html.

4. Wilson RF. The death of Jesse Gelsinger: new evidence of the influence of money and prestige in human research. Am J Law Med. 2010; 36:295–325.

5. Hartogs P. Gene therapy researchers defend trial after death of patient [Internet]. accessed on 6 July 2017. Available at http://archives.cnn.com/1999/HEALTH/12/10/gene.therapy.01.

6. Wilson JM. Lessons learned from the gene therapy trial for ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency. Mol Genet Metab. 2009; 96:151–157.

7. DiStefano JN, Collins H, Vedantam S. Penn reviewing gene institute's ties to company backers of James M. Wilson's firm finance his research. He could benefit personally. Is there a conflict of interest? (Philadelphia Inquirer. February 27, 2000. A01) [Internet]. accessed on 5 July 2017. Available at http://articles.philly.com/2000-02-27/news/25574737_1_gene-therapy-genovo-jesse-gelsinger.

8. Hayden EC. James Wilson: gene therapy researcher warns stem-cell scientists not to repeat his field's mistakes [Internet]. accessed on 5 July 2017. Available at http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090507/full/news.2009.455.html.

9. Friedman LS, Richter ED. Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med. 2004; 19:51–56.

10. Murphy TF. Case Studies in Biomedical Research Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press;2004.

11. American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy. Policy of the American Society of Gene Therapy financial conflict of interest in clinical research [Internet]. accessed on 5 July 2017. Available at http://www.asgct.org/position_statements/conflict_of_interest.php.

12. Weinfurt KP, Hall MA, King NM, Friedman JY, Schulman KA, Sugarman J. Disclosure of financial relationships to participants in clinical research. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361:916–921.

13. Weinfurt KP, Friedman JY, Dinan MA, Allsbrook JS, Hall MA, Dhillon JK, Sugarman J. Disclosing conflicts of interest in clinical research: views of institutional review boards, conflict of interest committees, and investigators. J Law Med Ethics. 2006; 34:581–591.

14. Bayh-Dole Act or Patent and Trademark Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-517, § 101, 94 Stat. 3015, 3028. 1980.

15. Policies of General Applicability, 42 C.F.R. Part 50. 2005.

16. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Financial relationships and interests in research involving human subjects: guidance for human subject protection: guidance for human subject projection [Internet]. accessed on 5 July 2017. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/humansubjects/finreltn/fguid.pdf.

17. Responsible Prospective Contractors, 45 C.F.R. Part 94. 2005.

18. Rockey SJ, Collins FS. Managing financial conflict of interest in biomedical research. JAMA. 2010; 303:2400–2402.

19. Dresser R. Research ethics. Aligning regulations and ethics in human research. Science. 2012; 337:527–528.

20. National Institutes of Health (US). How do I develop consent forms and who reviews them? [Internet]. accessed on 5 July 2017. Available at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/research/funding/research-support/crg/funding/consent-forms.htm.

21. Johns Hopkins Medicine (US). Informed consent guidance-how to prepare a readable consent form [Internet]. accessed on 20 June 2017. Available at http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institutional_review_board/guidelines_policies/guidelines/informed_consent_ii.html.

22. Bard College (US). Institutional Review Board: informed consent [Internet]. accessed on 20 June 2017. Available at http://www.bard.edu/irb/consent.

23. Grady C, Horstmann E, Sussman JS, Hull SC. The limits of disclosure: what research subjects want to know about investigator financial interests. J Law Med Ethics. 2006; 34:592–599.

24. National Institutes of Health (US). Financial conflict of interest [Interntet]. accessed on 20 June 2017. Available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coi/index.htm.

25. Furrow BR, Greaney TL, Johnson SH, Jost TS, Schwartz RL. Health Law: Cases, Materials and Problems. 7th ed. St. Paul, MN: West;2013.

26. Moore v. Regents of University of California, 51 Cal. 3d 120. 1990.

27. Harmon K. Should doctors disclose conflicts of interest to trial patients? [Internet]. accessed on 20 June 2017. Available at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conflict-of-interest-disclosure.

28. Goldner JA. Dealing with conflicts of interest in biomedical research: IRB oversight as the next best solution to the abolitionist approach. J Law Med Ethics. 2000; 28:379–404.

29. Finkel MJ. Should informed consent include information on how research is funded? IRB. 1991; 13:1–3.

30. Cain DM, Loewenstein G, Moore DA. The dirt on coming clean: perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. J Legal Stud. 2005; 34:1–25.

31. Riden HE, Grooms KN, Clark CR, Cohen LR, Gagne J, Tovar DA, Ommerborn MJ, Orton PS, Johnson PA. Lessons learned obtaining informed consent in research with vulnerable populations in community health center settings [Internet]. accessed on 20 June 2017. Available at http://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-0500-5-624.

32. Kong HG, Shin YS, Kim OJ. A critical review of the Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) behind the humidifier disinfectant scandal: comparing the cases of a U.S. university and Korean universities. Bioeth Policy Stud. 2016; 9:1–43.