News
The College committee that oversees human subject research is reviewing its policies in response to a recent report calling for the reform of procedures dealing with potential financial conflicts in research involving human subjects.
According to the study issued by the American Association of Medical Colleges, academic institutions need to oversee human subject research more carefully, guarding especially against financial conflicts of interest.
At least part of the problem stems from the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, which the report says allowed institutions and researchers to share in the return on successful inventions arising from federally-funded research.
While the report's authors note that the Bayh-Dole Act has facilitated collaboration between academia and industry, they find that, as academics receive more funds from commercial sources, they face more financial conflicts of interest.
Such conflicts of interest are especially serious when academics undertake research involving human subjects, according to the AAMC report.
Elizabeth Bankert, director of Dartmouth's Institutional Review Board, which oversees research at Dartmouth, said she believes that Dartmouth already has adequate protections against conflict of interest in place.
For example, the AAMC defines "significant financial conflict" as benefits of more than $10,000 or 5 percent equity in a company arising from a study.