Please join us on Friday, September 12 from 11 AM – 12 PM ET for a webinar to discuss the MRCT Center’s ongoing work related to the challenges of post-trial continued access to investigational products. Post-trial continued access is a shared responsibility and should be determined before the trial begins. Even with the best planning, complex situations can arise that require research sponsors to balance various tradeoffs and impacts on stakeholders. The MRCT Center’s Post-Trial Continued Access Task Force has developed resources to guide equitable and fair decision-making related to the continued provision of the investigational medicine, or continued maintenance of the investigational significant risk device after the trial.
This webinar will introduce a series of resources, including principles, frameworks, and recommendations. Case studies will also be presented to illustrate unique complexities that sponsors and investigators must consider.
The Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency (JTF), anchored at the MRCT Center, develops and disseminates standards and practices for the global clinical research workforce. By fostering a cohesive and collaborative approach, the JTF ensures that professionals have the competencies to conduct clinical trials ethically and effectively.
Our international team of investigators, educators, and clinical research professionals has developed and/or utilizes a framework that defines the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for conducting safe, ethical, and high-quality clinical research.
This guidance document is intended to be used as a tool to supplement the review, discussion, and deliberation of Research Ethics Committees reviewing clinical trial protocols.
This tool was developed by Barbara E. Bierer, MD (The MRCT Center of Brigham & Women’s Hospital and Harvard), Jeffrey D’Souza, PhD (University of Toronto), Caroline M. Kithinji, PhD (Kenya Medical Research Institute), and Winfred B. Nazziwa, MS (Uganda National Council for Science & Technology), in collaboration with the African Vaccines Regulatory Forum (AVAREF).
“Defamation Claims Arising from Research Misconduct Cases: Best Practices for Institutions,” published in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, co-authored by Barbara Bierer and Mark Barnes, as well as Nathaniel Jaffe, Minal Caron, and Lauren Walsh, analyzes nine instances in which defamation suits were employed to obstruct misconduct investigations. It summarizes the legal bases of such claims and key defenses (e.g., Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, truth, opinion), then distills institutional best practices—from calibrated public disclosures to stringent confidentiality protocols—to protect both scientific integrity and institutional resilience.
Jaffe N, Caron M, Walsh L, Bierer B, Barnes M. Defamation Claims Arising from Research Misconduct Cases: Best Practices for Institutions. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2025;53(1):47-54. doi:10.1017/jme.2025.37
In the article “Managing Multi-Institutional Jurisdiction in Cases of Research Misconduct,” published in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, co-authors Mark Barnes and Barbara Bierer examine the persistent challenges of jurisdictional ambiguity when research misconduct spans multiple institutions. Together with Leslie Thornton and Devin Cohen, they outline key gaps in current regulatory guidance and propose a framework for collaborative resolution that safeguards fairness and research integrity. The article calls for clearer delineation of institutional responsibilities and improved mechanisms for inter-institutional coordination in misconduct investigations.
Thornton L, Cohen D, Barnes M, Bierer BE. Managing Multi-Institutional Jurisdiction in Cases of Research Misconduct. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2025;53(1):41-46. doi:10.1017/jme.2025.36
In the article “Benefits that Offset Research Risks and Burdens are Qualitatively Different,” published in The American Journal of Bioethics, Barbara Bierer joins co-authors Luke Gelinas and Benjamin C. Silverman to examine how indirect benefits offered to research participants (e.g., payments, access to medicines) differ fundamentally from direct benefits that justify risk. The authors argue that these categories of benefit must be conceptually and ethically distinguished in research design and review. Their commentary challenges current interpretations of benefit-risk assessment and calls for greater nuance in ethical review frameworks.
Gelinas, L., Silverman, B. C., & Bierer, B. E. (2025). Benefits that Offset Research Risks and Burdens are Qualitatively Different. The American Journal of Bioethics, 25(5), 78–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2025.2488293
This on-demand webinar, presented on June 26, examines the FDA’s recommendations for long-term safety monitoring of gene therapy recipients—recognizing both the transformative benefits and potential health risks—and highlights the critical need to design follow-up studies around patient needs and preferences to minimize burdens. Building on prior discussions of platform trials and registries, this webinar emphasizes strategies to reduce burden and enhance participant-centered practices. Perspectives include insights from a foundation tackling patient loss to follow-up, expertise on embedding patient-centric culture change into study design, and a patient advocate’s lived experience emphasizing the power of patient voices in shaping compassionate, sustainable LTFU frameworks.
This webinar launched the MRCT Center and WCG’s Review Framework for Protocols Involving Artificial Intelligence (AI). This framework supports Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in reviewing research where AI is part of the intervention. The framework was developed through a multi-disciplinary task force, and these actionable tools offer both (1) structured guidance grounded in U.S. regulations and (2) ethical considerations to assist IRBs in evaluating benefits and risks while ensuring oversight and transparency across the AI development lifecycle. This session introduced a practical decision-making resource intended to help IRBs determine when and how to apply appropriate and proportionate oversight to protocols involving AI.
Key Topics:
Introduction to the IRB review framework focusing on aligning review practices with existing regulations and ethical standards.
Structured questions IRBs can use to assess risk, benefits, and ethical considerations when AI is used as a research intervention.
An expert panel discussion on navigating ethical considerations and the question of “AI Exceptionalism” during IRB review.
Learn about the MRCT Center’s Clinical Research Glossary, a collaboratively developed plain language resource designed to enhance understanding of clinical research terminology. Discover how you can participate in the annual Public Review—an essential step toward making these terms a CDISC global standard. Your involvement ensures the glossary remains accurate, inclusive, and effective for informed decision-making in clinical research. Now open through July 5.
Key Topics:
The terms and definitions going through Public Review
Why your voice matters in Public Review
How to easily participate and submit feedback
The role of Public Review in shaping global clinical research standards
Public Review is a Critical Part of the Clinical Research Glossary process.
Part of being a CDISC global plain language standard means all new terms and definitions, plus change requests we received throughout the year, go through a public review process.
Public Review of the Clinical Research Glossary happens every June.
After definitions are developed by the Clinical Research Glossary team, Public Review ensures the definitions get an extra review by people who were not involved in the project. This helps us be more confident that the definitions are clear and easy to understand.
Send us your feedback using the MRCT Center Public Review process.
The MRCT Center’s process uses a simple survey to collect feedback.
This process will not require reviewers to create an account, but we do ask for name, organization and email address. Collecting this information allows us to validate the entry and follow-up with each person to let them know how the comment was addressed.
You can send us feedback on already posted definitions all year round and suggest new words for us to consider whenever you want. Click here to contact us.
The CDISC Public Review process is also an option if you know how to use JIRA
This works great if you already have a CDISC login and are familiar with the process. Individuals will need to create accounts to provide comments via JIRA.
CDISC has kindly provided video instructions here.
This resource offers institutional review boards (IRBs) and other oversight entities a structured, practical approach to evaluating protocols that involve artificial intelligence in research with human participants. The framework addresses emerging ethical and regulatory challenges specific to AI—such as algorithmic bias, adaptive learning, data identifiability, and the need for human oversight—while aligning with foundational ethical principles and applicable U.S. regulations. Through tools including a decision tree for regulatory applicability, developmental stage-specific review guidance, and targeted ethical considerations, the framework supports consistent, thorough review processes that protect participants and promote the responsible use of AI in clinical research.
