• 의료법학
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.99-131
• /
• 2011

To strengthen the protection of human research subjects and human materials, the Korean Ministry of Health and welfare proposed the amendment bill of Bioethics and Safety Law(2010) to the Congress. It includes so many meaningful clauses. According to the bill, the scope that this act shall apply will be expended to the research involving human subjects and human materials. In the bill, there are the principles of this act; the protection of the life, health, and dignity of the human subjects, the obtaining of the adequate informed consent, the protection of the human subject's information confidentiality and the human subject's privacy, the assessment and minimizing of the risks involved and the guarantee of the safety for the human subjects, the preparation of the special protection program for the vulnerable human subjects, and so on. According to the bill, Institutional Bioethics Review Board(the same as Institutional Review Board) will be responsible for the auditing and monitoring on the research that was approved by IBRB, conducting the education program for the researchers, IBRB members and administrative staffs, preparing of the special protection program for the vulnerable human subjects, and forming the guidelines for the researchers as well as the review of the research protocols. And the State and local governments shall take necessary measures to support the expending of the social infrastructure. In addition to, IBRB will have to be assessed and to be gained the accreditation by the Korean Ministry of Health and welfare. So, if Bioethics and Safety Law is amended, it will contribute enormously to enhance the level of the human research subjects protection. Also, if this Law is amended, IBRB will play a major role for the conduct of the ethically, scientifically, and legally proper research. But now, as a matter of fact, the capability of IBRB members and IBRB office members is not enough to charge of this role because some people and some organizations does not know the importance of IBRB exactly. In spite of, IBRB shall be able to this role to protect the human subjects and to develop the level of the research On the international level. Therefore, the State, local governments and the Organization shall back up the administrative and financial terms of the IRB and IRB Office.

• 한국보육지원학회지
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.1-17
• /
• 2018

Objective: The purpose of this paper is to understand the bioethics and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in the social and behavioral research area through "The Bioethics and Safety Act" and to examine the IRB's present situation, roles, responsibilities, and tasks. Methods: This paper reviewed articles, materials for education, and "The Bioethics and Safety Act" related with the IRB. Results: Bioethics included all the research in the social and behavioral area, and "The Bioethics and Safety Act" has been enforced in every research projects targeting human subjects since February 2, 2013. Accoding to the law, the IRB must review the research proposals for human subjects and was introduced in social and behavioral research as a self-regulating system. At present, all the related institutions including universities must establish and run the IRB. This paper introduced the definition of bioethics, the IRB's roles and review types, the total number of registered IRB, and "The Bioethics and Safety Act". Conclusion/Implications: Both the central government and the local government have to make an effort for the establishment and settlement of the IRB system. This paper also presented some of the problems of the IRB.

• Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science
• /
• 제35권1호
• /
• pp.36-39
• /
• 2018

In the personalized medicine era, utilizing paraffin blocks in pathology archives for investigating human diseases has come into the limelight. This archived material with clinical data will reduce the research time and could prevent new patient recruitment to obtain tissue for research. However, the clause indicating the necessity of consent from human material providers in the Korean Bioethics and Safety Act has made the Institutional Review Board (IRB) deny permission to use paraffin blocks for research without consent, and alternatively to get the same before starting an experiment. Written consent may be waived off in studies using paraffin blocks with anonymous status or conditions not linked to personal information by applying the paragraph 3, article 16 of the current Bioethics and Safety Act. Also, the IRB should recommend researchers to preserve the blocks as medical records of patients in long-term archives.

• 대한소아치과학회지
• /
• 제41권2호
• /
• pp.187-192
• /
• 2014

연구윤리는 학문을 탐구하는 사람이 갖추어야 할 가장 근본적인 자세라고 할 수 있다. 많은 선학들의 훌륭한 연구 업적 덕분에 지금의 학문 체계가 마련될 수 있었다. 최근 증가되고 있는 결과 중심의 연구 풍토와 업적을 중시하는 평가 시스템은 일부 학자로서의 양심을 벗어난 연구를 부추기는 부작용을 낳을 수 있다고 사료된다. 이에 저자는 뉘른베르크 강령과 헬싱키 선언으로 시작된 연구윤리의 개념을 되짚어보고, 이를 강조하는 주체에 대한 각국의 입장과 국내 실정을 소개하며, 최근 개정된 "생명윤리 및 안전에 관한 법률"에 따른 기관생명윤리위원회의 역할, 심의면제 그리고 심의절차 등에 관해 검토해보고, 향후 연구자가 숙지해야할 내용을 점검해 보았다. 또한 연구 객관성의 확보와 연구부정행위에 대한 검증 및 대비를 위해 연구노트의 적극적인 활용을 고려해 보는 것을 제안하는 바이다.

• 대한기관윤리심의기구협의회지
• /
• 제4권2호
• /
• pp.36-41
• /
• 2022

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate how university hospital Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in Korea classify risk when reviewing clinical trial protocols. Methods: IRB experts (IRB chairman, vice chairman, IRB administrator) in the university hospitals obtaining a Human research protection program (HRPP) or IRB accreditation in Korea were asked to fill out the Google Survey from September 1, 2020 to October 10, 2020. Result: Among the 23 responder hospitals, 8 were accredited by the American Association for Human Research Protection Program (AAHRPP) and 8 were accredited by the HRPP of Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). Seven were accredited by Forum for Ethical Review Committees in Asia and the Western Pacific or Korea National Institution for Bioethics Policy. Thirteen of 23 hospitals (56.5%) had 4 levels (less than minimal, low, moderate, high risk), 4 hospitals had 3 levels (less than, slightly over, over than minimal risk), 1 hospital had 5 levels (4 levels plus required data safety monitoring board), and 1 hospital had 2 levels (less than, over than minimal risk) risk classification system. Thirteen of 23 hospitals (56.5%) had difficulty classifying the risk levels of research protocols. Fourteen hospitals (60.9%) responded that different standards among hospitals for risk level determination associated with clinical trials will affect the subject protection. Six hospitals (26.1%) responded that it will not. Three hospitals (13.0%) responded that it will affect the beginning of the clinical trial. To resolve differences in standards between hospitals, 14 hospitals (60.9%) responded that either the Korean Association of IRB or MFDS needs to provide a guideline for risk level determination in clinical trials: 5 hospitals (21.7%) responded education for IRB members and researchers is needed; 3 hospitals (13.0%) responded that difference among institutions needs to be acknowledged; and 1 hospital (4.3%) responded that there needs to be communication among IRB, investigator, and sponsor. Conclusion: After conducting a nationwide survey on how IRB in university hospital determines risk during review of clinical trials, it is reasonable to use 4-level risk classification (less than minimal, low, moderate, high risk); the most utilized method among hospitals. Moreover, personal information and conflict of interest associated with clinical trials have to be considered when reviewing clinical trial protocols.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.165-206
• /
• 2018

연구와 관련하여 다중적 이해관계(multiple interests)를 가지고 있는 연구자, 기관생명윤리위원회 및 임상시험심사위원회 위원, 연구기관 등은 전문적인 판단(professional judgment)을 내림에 있어 이해상충(Conflicts of Interest)의 문제가 발생하지 않도록, 즉 자신이 수행해야 하는 역할이나 이행해야 하는 의무에 의하면 반드시 고려되어야만 하거나 보다 우선시되어야하는 1차적 이해(primary interest)가 그렇지 않은 2차적 이해(secondary interest)로 인해 영향을 받지 않도록 하여야 한다. 그러므로 이해상충의 문제의 발생을 예방하거나 발생된 이해상충의 문제를 해결할 수 있도록 하기 위해 기준과 방법이 마련되어 있어야 하고, 이와 관련한 기본적인 사항은 모든 당사자가 이해하고 따를 수 있도록 하기 위해 법정책적으로 명확하게 제시될 필요가 있다. 보다 현실성 있는 법정책의 마련을 위해서는 현황 파악이 전제되어야 할 것이므로 연구 관련 주요 실무자인 기관생명윤리위원회 및 임상시험심사위원회의 운영지원인력(행정간사)을 대상으로 하여 수행된 설문조사 및 인터뷰의 결과를 살펴봄으로써 이해상충과 관련한 법정책적 쟁점과 이의 해결을 위한 대응방안에 관한 의견을 확인해보았다. 그리고 향후 이해상충에 대한 국내 법정책의 마련에 도움을 주고자 미국 보건부에서 발표한 이해상충 관련 지침의 주요 내용을 살펴보았다. 마지막으로, 이해상충과 관련한 국내 법정책의 현황을 연구자의 이해상충, 기관생명윤리위원회 및임상시험심사위원회위원의 이해상충, 기관의 이해상충으로 구분하여 파악해보고 그 개선방안을 제시하였다.

• 한국치위생학회지
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.241-250
• /
• 2014

Objectives : The purpose of the study was to examine the ethical requirements for the protection of human subjects in the publication guidelines of dental health journals. Methods : The guidelines of 27 dental health journals were reviewed to determine ethical standards alone, with Helsinki Declaration, by an institutional review board (IRB), informed consent, protection of subject privacy and confidentiality, and no conflicts of interest. Results : 1. Dentistry journals listed on National Research Foundation of Korea had a conflict of interest disclosure provisions of the contribution(76.9%) and the IRB approval(61.5%). 2. Half of the dental health journals were not listed on National Research Foundation of Korea Society but they agreed the advance posting provisions. 3. Dental hygiene journals provide 100% of ethics alone and receive 75% of IRB in the papers. 4. Dental health and dental hygiene journals have conflicts of interest disclosure regulations(59.2%) and IRB approval(51.8%). 5. There existed statistically significant differences between the dental health journals whether they were listed on the human subjects and ethical standards for protection in National Research Foundation of Korea or not. Conclusions : While the publication guidelines of dental health journals have followed to a greater extent in recent years, there is still a need for further instructions to ensure that the authors satisfy all ethical requirements in conducting research on human subjects. IRB approval for dental journals must be standardized and reinforced reflecting the characteristics of each journals. The researchers should obey the code of ethics suitable for education and the editors must review the paper continuously.