University of Minnesota to Overhaul Research Protections
By Jennifer Couzin-Frankel,
Science
| 06. 15. 2015
More than a decade after a young man committed suicide during a psychiatric clinical trial at the University of Minnesota—and a bioethicist there spent years lobbying for changes to the school’s clinical trials system—the university is announcing major changes to how it oversees trials and protects its most vulnerable research subjects. Last week, the school released a 75-page document describing an effort to restructure its system and calm its critics. Changes include tighter conflict-of-interest rules; a larger institutional review board (IRB) whose members will be compensated; improved training for researchers working with vulnerable populations, such as the severely mentally ill; and a board of external advisers to monitor the university’s efforts.
The report comes after two damning reviews earlier this year: one by a group of experts appointed by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs and the other by the state’s Office of the Legislative Auditor. The first report examined protections for university clinical trial participants. Among other things, it found that many IRB members did not regularly attend meetings during the first half of 2014—the...
Related Articles
By Jenny Lange, BioNews | 12.01.2025
A UK toddler with a rare genetic condition was the first person to receive a new gene therapy that appears to halt disease progression.
Oliver, now three years old, has Hunter syndrome, an inherited genetic disorder that leads to physical...
By Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
By Pam Belluck and Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 11.19.2025
Gene-editing therapies offer great hope for treating rare diseases, but they face big hurdles: the tremendous time and resources involved in devising a treatment that might only apply to a small number of patients.
A study published on Wednesday...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...