Call for Papers: Designing Ethical Review Processes for Big Data Research

The Future of Privacy Forum is hosting an academic workshop supported by the National Science Foundation to discuss ethical, legal, and technical guidance for organizations conducting research on personal information. Authors are invited to submit papers for presentation at a full-day program to take place on December 10, 2015. Papers for presentation will be selected by an academic advisory board and published in the online edition of the Washington and Lee Law Review. Four papers will be selected to serve as “firestarters” for the December workshop, awarding each author with a $1000 stipend. Submissions, which are due by October 25, 2015, at 11:59 PM ET, must be 2,500 to 3,500 words, with minimal footnotes and in a readable style accessible to a wide audience. Publication decisions and workshop invitations will be sent in November. Details here.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Looney v. Moore (SUPPORT trial lawsuit)

The district court has granted summary judgment (opinion pdf) for all remaining defendants as to all of plaintiffs’ remaining claims in Looney v. Moore, the lawsuit arising out of the controversial SUPPORT trial, which I last discussed here. This therefore ends the lawsuit, pending possible appeal by the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff infants include two who were randomized to the low oxygen group and survived, but suffer from “neurological issues,” and one who was randomized to the high oxygen group who developed ROP, but not permanent vision loss. In their Fifth Amended Complaint (pdf), plaintiffs alleged negligence, lack of informed consent, breach of fiduciary duty, and product liability claims against, variously, individual IRB members, the P.I., and the pulse oximeter manufacturer. What unites all of these claims is the burden on plaintiffs to show (among other things) that their injuries were caused by their participation in the trial. Continue reading

Journal of Law and the Biosciences: Call for Harvard Student Submissions

JLB coverThe Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School collaborates with Stanford and Duke Universities to publish the Journal of Law and Biosciences  (Oxford University Press), an online, open-access, peer-reviewed journal. JLB includes a Notes & Developments section, comprised  of  brief summaries and commentary on recent legislation, regulation, and case law written by graduate students at the collaborating schools. The Petrie­Flom Center is responsible for providing the Notes & Developments for one issue per annual volume.

We are currently seeking Harvard graduate students to contribute papers to be published in JLB’s Notes & Developments section in early 2016. In previous years, Notes & Developments have been generated from scratch specifically for JLB, based on selection from submitted proposals. This year, we are taking a different approach by publishing already complete (or to-be-completed by the deadline) original student papers (such as student notes, course papers, etc.) written by graduate students from any Harvard school.  Notes & Developments are limited to 5000 words, including footnotes and references,  and  should  be  on  a  topic  of  relevance  to  law  and  the  biosciences,  in particular a topic of relatively recent concern, controversy, or change. They should focus on  describing  the  issue  at  hand,  explaining  why  it  is  relevant to scholars and practitioners, and providing analysis and questions for further consideration.

Interested students should submit their papers and CVs for consideration no later than September 7, 2015 (earlier  is  welcome). Up to four papers will be selected for publication in the New Developments section of JLB. Applicants will be notified by the end of September. Selected students will receive comments on their papers by the end of October, and will also be responsible for providing comments to the other selected students. Revisions will be due by the end of November, and final submissions to JLB will be due by the end of December 2015.

Please send all application materials, and direct all questions, to Holly Fernandez Lynch, hlynch@law.harvard.edu.

Affective Forecasting and Genetics

by Zachary Shapiro

Psychological research on “affective forecasting,” studying individuals’ ability to predict their future emotional states, consistently shows that people are terrible at predicting their ability to adapt to future adversity. This finding has particular significance for medical decision-making, as so many serious health decisions hinge on quality-of-life judgments, generally made by an individual balancing risks and benefits they perceive of a future state that is likely to result from a given therapeutic regime.

Much of the research on affective forecasting has focused on high-stakes events, restricting study participation to those likely to find the study event particularly significant, such as tenure-track faculty, registered voters, or sports enthusiasts. Despite a growing body of research on forecasting biases in the medical domain, little work has previously systematically considered such biases in clinical genetics. However, as the prevalence of genetic testing has increased, scholars have noticed forecasting deficiencies with increasing regularity.[1]

While evidence suggests that those who receive genetic testing, whether they are non-carriers or carriers of specific genes, differ in terms of short-term general psychological distress, their long-term distress levels do not differ significantly. Results of research into the affective reactions of patients undergoing predictive genetic testing suggest that, in general, psychological outcomes are not as negative as one may expect.

Continue reading

The 21st Century Cures Act, HIPAA, Big Data, and Medical Research

By Nicholson Price

The 21st Century Cures Act is a big deal; the House passed it handily, and we’re still waiting to see what the Senate does.  A lot has been written about what it does in terms of changing FDA review processes, and a fair bit about the lovely increase in funding for NIH (see Rachel Sachs’ blog posts here, here, and here).  These are tremendously important.

But another provision in the bill has been getting much less play: the way it changes HIPAA to enable large-scale research, which is also a big deal all by itself. Continue reading

Health Law Year in P/Review: Until Next Year

This new post by Holly F. Lynch, I. Glenn Cohen, and Gregory Curfman appears on the Health Affairs Blog as the final entry in a series stemming from the Third Annual Health Law Year in P/Review event held at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 30, 2015.

It’s been our great pleasure to collaborate with the Health Affairs Blog on this series stemming from theThird Annual Health Law Year in P/Review symposium at Harvard Law School. This annual event takes a look back over the prior year and previews the year to come with regard to hot topics in health law.

After the symposium, we asked our speakers to keep the conversation going online by expanding on their topics from different angles or by honing in on particularly intriguing features. These pieces were published on the Health Affairs Blog through the spring and into summer.

We heard more from Kevin Outterson on how to promote innovation in the development of new antibiotics, from Rachel Sachs on whether the Food and Drug Administration’s proposal to regulate laboratory-developed tests will really stifle innovation, and from Claire Laporte on the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions on bio-IP.

George Annas weighed in on the Ebola outbreak, which has already almost faded from public consciousness but offers important public health lessons, while Wendy Parmet and Andrew Sussman tackled important developments in tobacco control. […]

Read the full post here.

New York Times Op-Ed on the A/B Illusion & the Virtues of Data-Driven Innovation

I have an op-ed with Christopher Chabris that appeared in this past Sunday’s New York Times. It focuses on one theme in my recent law review article on corporate experimentation: the A/B illusion. Despite the rather provocative headline that the Times gave it, our basic argument, made as clearly as we could in 800 words, is this: sometimes, it is more ethical to conduct a nonconsensual A/B experiment than to simply go with one’s intuition and impose A on everyone. Our contrary tendency to see experiments—but not untested innovations foisted on us by powerful people—as involving risk, uncertainty, and power asymmetries is what I call the A/B illusion in my law review article. Here is how the op-ed begins:

Can it ever be ethical for companies or governments to experiment on their employees, customers or citizens without their consent? The conventional answer — of course not! — animated public outrage last year after Facebook published a study in which it manipulated how much emotional content more than half a million of its users saw. Similar indignation followed the revelation by the dating site OkCupid that, as an experiment, it briefly told some pairs of users that they were good matches when its algorithm had predicted otherwise. But this outrage is misguided. Indeed, we believe that it is based on a kind of moral illusion.

After the jump, some clarifications and further thoughts.

Continue reading

How Institutional Review Boards Can Support Learning Health Systems While Providing Meaningful Oversight

This new post by Mildred Solomon appears on the Health Affairs Blog as part of a series stemming from the Third Annual Health Law Year in P/Review event held at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 30, 2015.

Increasingly, health systems are studying their own practices in order to improve the quality of care they deliver. But many organizations do not know whether the data they collect at the point of care constitutes research, and if so, whether it requires informed consent. Further, many investigators report that institutional review boards (IRBs) place unreasonable burdens on learning activities, impeding systematic inquiry that is needed to enhance care.

As a result, some commentators have argued that our human research participant protection regulatory framework needs a dramatic overhaul. Yet, it is not the regulations that must change.

Instead, IRBs should educate themselves about quality improvement and comparative effectiveness research, exempt studies that qualify for exemption, and provide waivers to informed consent, when that is appropriate. At the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) must clarify the regulations that have an impact on this type of research, create better guidance about how IRBs should regulate such research, including illustrative case studies to guide IRBs.

Read the full post here.

The Ethics of Punking the Diet-Research Media Complex (and Millions of Readers)

ScaleA remarkable new “sting” of the “diet research-media complex” was just revealed. It tells us little we didn’t already know and has potentially caused a fair amount of damage, spread across millions of people. It does, however, offer an opportunity to explore the importance of prospective group review of non-consensual human subjects research—and the limits of IRBs applying the Common Rule in serving that function in contexts like this.

Journalist John Bohannon, two German reporters, a doctor and a statistician recruited 16 German subjects through Facebook into a three-week randomized controlled trial of diet and weight loss. One-third were told to follow a low-carb diet, one-third were told to cut carbs but add 1.5 ounces of dark chocolate (about 230 calories) per day, and one-third served as control subjects and were told to make no changes to their current diet. They were all given questionnaires and blood tests in advance to ensure they didn’t have diabetes, eating disorders, or other conditions that would make the study dangerous for them, and these tests were repeated after the study. They were each paid 150 Euros (~$163) for their trouble.

But it turns out that Bohannon, the good doctor (who had written a book about dietary pseudoscience), and their colleagues were not at all interested in studying diet. Instead, they wanted to show how easy it is for bad science to be published and reported by the media. The design of the diet trial was deliberately poor. It involved only a handful of subjects, had a poor balance of age and of men and women, and so on. But, through the magic of p-hacking, they managed several statistically significant results: eating chocolate accelerates weight loss and leads to healthier cholesterol levels and increased well-being. Continue reading

Petrie-Flom is hiring a new postdoctoral fellow in clinical research ethics!

PFC Logo-RGB-Round-Otlns-NewPetrie-Flom Center/Harvard Catalyst Fellow in Clinical Research Ethics

Job Description

This is a newly created full-time position for a post-doctoral employee fellow in clinical research ethics to support the work of the Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School in its collaboration with the Regulatory Foundations, Ethics, and Law Program of Harvard Catalyst, Harvard’s Clinical and Translational Science Center. The fellow must have strong knowledge of clinical research and its regulation, with particular interest in the regulatory, ethical, and practical aspects associated with recruitment and retention of research participants.  The position will provide the opportunity to interact with a wide range of stakeholders, such as IRB members, administrators, investigators, institutional leadership, patient advocates, and other community members. This position allows for a maximum of 10% effort in furtherance of the fellow’s own research agenda(s) in related fields.  Illustrative projects include the following: Continue reading

Two Cheers for Corporate Experimentation

Rubin's vase2I have a new law review article out, Two Cheers for Corporate Experimentation: The A/B Illusion and the Virtues of Data-Driven Innovation, arising out of last year’s terrific Silicon Flatirons annual tech/privacy conference at Colorado Law, the theme of which was “When Companies Study Their Customers.”

This article builds on, but goes well beyond, my prior work on the Facebook experiment in Wired (mostly a wonky regulatory explainer of the Common Rule and OHRP engagement guidance as applied to the Facebook-Cornell experiment, albeit with hints of things to come in later work) and Nature (a brief mostly-defense of the ethics of the experiment co-authored with 5 ethicists and signed by an additional 28, which was necessarily limited in breadth and depth by both space constraints and the need to achieve overlapping consensus).

Although I once again turn to the Facebook experiment as a case study (and also to new discussions of the OkCupid matching algorithm experiment and of 401(k) experiments), the new article aims at answering a much broader question than whether any particular experiment was legal or ethical. Continue reading

May 7: Identified Versus Statistical Lives – Book Talk & Discussion

Identified Versus Statistical Lives – Book talk and discussion, featuring co-editors I. Glenn Cohen (Faculty Director), Nir Eyal, and Norman Daniels

Cohen_Identified_LivesThursday, May 7, 12:30 – 1:30 PM
Harvard Chan School of Public Health
Building 1, Room 1208
677 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA  [Map]

The essays in Identified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Approach address the identified lives effect, namely, the greater human proclivity to assist persons and groups identified as at high risk of great harm than ones who will (or already) suffer similar harm, yet remain unidentified. Because of this effect we often allocate resources reactively rather than proactively, prioritizing treatment over prevention. The practical and the ethical questions this raises extend to almost every aspect of human life and health policy. The book discusses the psychology of the identified lives effect, pits thinkers who deem it to reflect an irrational aspect of our thinking against ones who deem it to be rational, and explores practical questions ranging from environmental health to “treatment as prevention” for HIV/AIDS.

Read the front matter of the book online!

TOMORROW at 12PM: Moral Decisions in the Law: What’s the Brain Got to Do with It?

Moral Decisions in the Law: What’s the Brain Got to Do with It?

brainscan_colored_slide_270_174_85April 8, 2015 12:00 PM

Harvard Law School
Wasserstein Hall, Room 3019
1585 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA [Map]

Law – particularly criminal law – is infused with moral judgment and calls upon prosecutors, judges, and jurors to make morally-informed decisions. But where does morality come from? How do we “do” moral decision-making? Come join experimental philosopher and neuroscientist Fiery Cushman for a fascinating and provocative discussion of the current state of neuroscience research on morality. Dr. Cushman will present his computational models of learning and moral decision-making to describe how we learn what morality is within our own cultures, how we internalize moral rules, and how we make moral judgments about others. Amanda Pustilnik, Senior Fellow in Law and Applied Neuroscience at the Petrie-Flom Center and the Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior at Massachusetts General Hospital, will respond.

This event is free and open to the public. Lunch will be provided.

 Part of the Project on Law and Applied Neuroscience.

Hopkins faces $1B lawsuit over role in government study that gave subjects STDs

The Petrie-Flom Center’s Executive Director Holly Fernandez Lynch and Faculty Director I. Glenn Cohen weigh in on the issue in the

Nearly 800 former research subjects and their families filed a billion-dollar lawsuit Wednesday against the Johns Hopkins University, blaming the institution for its role in 1940s government experiments in Guatemala that infected hundreds with syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases. […]

Legal experts said the lawsuit’s arguments could be a stretch. Today, professors who frequently serve on a volunteer basis with the National Institutes of Health, for example, are generally considered to be acting independently and not in their capacity as university faculty, said Holly Fernandez Lynch, executive director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics at Harvard University Law School.

[…] Because the experiments occurred so long ago, most if not all of the subjects are dead, and it could be difficult for someone to prove that a relative was part of the study, Lynch said. She and colleague I. Glenn Cohen, a professor at Harvard Law School, argued in a 2012 New York Times opinion piece that the Tuskegee experiment and others provide precedent for a fair recourse.

In the Tuskegee case, a legal settlement included lifetime medical benefits for study subjects and their wives, widows and children, as well as federal grants to promote research and health care ethics, they said. U.S. aid applied directly to Guatemalan health could be appropriate in this case, Lynch said.

“Congress and the [Obama] administration must step up more than they have, by offering financial restitution to Guatemalans with plausible claims of harm,” Lynch and Cohen wrote. “Even if the lawsuits were appropriately dismissed, justice has not been done.”

Continue reading

NEXT WEEK (4/8): Moral Decisions in the Law: What’s the Brain Got to Do with It?

Moral Decisions in the Law: What’s the Brain Got to Do with It?

brainscan_colored_slide_270_174_85April 8, 2015 12:00 PM

Harvard Law School
Wasserstein Hall, Room 3019
1585 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA [Map]

Law – particularly criminal law – is infused with moral judgment and calls upon prosecutors, judges, and jurors to make morally-informed decisions. But where does morality come from? How do we “do” moral decision-making? Come join experimental philosopher and neuroscientist Fiery Cushman for a fascinating and provocative discussion of the current state of neuroscience research on morality. Dr. Cushman will present his computational models of learning and moral decision-making to describe how we learn what morality is within our own cultures, how we internalize moral rules, and how we make moral judgments about others. Amanda Pustilnik, Senior Fellow in Law and Applied Neuroscience at the Petrie-Flom Center and the Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior at Massachusetts General Hospital, will respond.

This event is free and open to the public. Lunch will be provided.

 Part of the Project on Law and Applied Neuroscience.

New browser app shines light on conflicts of interest

By: Christine Baugh

A new Google Chrome extension puts the spotlight on conflicts of interest. The browser app, available for free download here, was created at the Hacking iCorruption hackathon event held March 27-29 in Cambridge, MA. The event, co-sponsored by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University and the MIT Center for Civic Media (hosted at the MIT Media Lab) brought together individuals with a variety of backgrounds and skills to work toward the common mission of fighting institutional corruption, in this case by creating practical tools. This project was one of several exciting tools created at the hackathon (information about other projects available here), and it won first prize among the projects.

The Chrome extension, called Unearth, puts funding and conflict of interest information on the abstract page of PubMed research articles. Christopher Robertson, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Arizona James E. Rodgers College of Law and Edmond J. Safra Center Fellow who was a member of the Unearth team, explains the rationale for the browser extension in this Youtube video. In short, conflict of interest and funding disclosures are often placed at the end of a research article and are generally unavailable on the abstract page. This makes it impractical for physicians and other research scientists to pay appropriate attention to this important information. Research from the Cochrane Collaboration has demonstrated that research studies funded by industry generally describe “greater benefits and fewer harmful side effects” than their non-industry funded counterparts. Thus, taking the source of research funding into account when reading a new research study is critical. Although the extension currently only works for open access articles from PubMed Central, this includes several million research articles for which funding and conflict of interest information was previously much more difficult to obtain. Additionally, the developers plan on expanding the breadth of coverage in the coming weeks. Continue reading

Two forthcoming publications on (1) European Stem Cell Patenting, and (2) IP issues in Biobanking

I am happy to announce the following publications:

1) Minssen, Timo and Nordberg, A., The Evolution of the CJEU’s Case Law on Stem Cell Patents: Context, Outcome and Implications of Case C‑364/13 International Stem Cell Corporation (March 11, 2015). Available at SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2576807  (under review for journal publication)

Abstract:  

On 18th December 2014, the CJEU rendered its’ much-anticipated decision in C‑364/13 International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents (ISCC). Qualifying its’ earlier ruling in Brüstle v. Greenpeace (Brüstle) with regard to non-fertilised human ova stimulated by parthenogenesis, the Court held that in order to constitute a ‘human embryo’ – and thus to be unpatentable under the EU Biotechnology Directive – the stimulated ovum must have the “inherent capacity to develop into a human being”. This would allow patents on innovative parthenotes which had not been genetically modified to achieve totipotent capabilities. Hence the judgment establishes a crucial limitation of the broad interpretation of “human embryos” in Brüstle, where the CJEU held that parthenotes are covered by the term “human embryo” since they are “capable of commencing the process of development of a human being”. The ISCC decision is to be welcomed since it provides an ethically justifiable leeway for patenting and offers reasonable support to the commercial viability of European cell therapy research. Yet, ISCC’s impact still depends on national implementations and only applies to certain hESC cells. Thus, further clarifications would be helpful concerning other non-totipotent hESCs.

Continue reading

Federal Newborn Screening Law Emphasizes Informed Consent

Allison M. Whelan, J.D.
Senior Fellow, Center for Bioethics and Global Health Policy, University of California, Irvine
Guest Blogger

On December 18, 2014, President Obama signed into law the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2014. The Act includes new timeliness and tracking measures to ensure newborn babies with deadly yet treatable disorders are diagnosed quickly. These changes responded to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation that found thousands of hospitals delayed sending babies’ blood samples to state labs.  A primary purpose of newborn screening is to detect disorders quickly, so any delays increase the risk of illness, disability, and even death.

Although a major reason for the Act’s amendments is to address these problematic delays, another important addition to the Act establishes a parental consent requirement before residual newborn blood spots (NBS) are used in federally-funded research. The Act directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to update the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the “Common Rule”) to recognize federally-funded research on NBS as “human subjects” research. It also eliminates the ability of an institutional review board to waive informed consent requirements for NBS research.

Continue reading

2015 Edition of the International Compilation of Human Research Standards Released

The 2015 edition of the International Compilation of Human Research Standards has just been released and is available online.

The Compilation features listings of over 1,000 laws, regulations, and guidelines on human subject protections in 113 countries, as well as standards issued by a number of international and regional organizations. Six new countries are included in the 2015 edition: Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and Sierra Leone.  The 2015 edition also includes hundreds of updates from the previous edition.

The listings are organized into seven categories: Continue reading

Clinical Trials Regulation in India

An op-ed from our friends Mark Barnes and Barbara Bierer at Harvard’s Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center on recent legal changes to India’s clinical trial requirements, arguing that using the clinical trial context to promote a social or political policy agenda in India may sacrifice scientific integrity in the service of social justice.  A quick snippet:

The overbreadth of these requirements, and how poorly tailored they are to achieve the specific goal of protecting clinical trial participants from risks directly caused by trials themselves, leaves one wondering whether the regulatory authorities fully comprehend the clinical trial process and the nuances of complex medical and biological processes. One further wonders whether what animates these measures may be less a concern for specific justice in individual cases than the goal of righting social wrongs and achieving social justice, unrelated to but prompted by clinical trial experiences. Achieving social justice and a more just allocation of social resources may be completely laudable – even desirable – as social or political policy, but unconsciously using the clinical trial context to promote this agenda threatens to corrupt science and to undermine health, with results that may create more social distress than social justice.

Read the full piece here.

And more commentary from MRCT on this issue: