Survey
Table 1_Responses by Category
The table presents a breakdown of 2,186 responses received to the Common Rule Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), categorized by respondent type. The majority of responses came from the general public (906), followed by researchers (401) and patients (245), indicating substantial engagement from both the research community and laypersons. Universities, medical centers, and Institutional Review B
Table 2_Results
The document presents a comprehensive summary of stakeholder feedback regarding proposed regulatory changes, particularly concerning the definition of "human subjects" and associated consent and oversight mechanisms in biomedical research. Across a sample size of 2,000 valid responses (excluding non-applicable and extension request submissions), the overall trend demonstrates substantial
Table 3.xlsx
The table presents the positions of various advocacy groups regarding biospecimen proposals, categorized by subgroups. Among citizen and non-specific patient or health advocacy and privacy advocates, a majority (55%) express support, with an additional 15% offering qualified support, while 30% are opposed. In contrast, advocacy groups focused on cancer and rare diseases show significantly less sup
Universities and Medical Centers
The reviewed document summarizes preliminary findings from COGR and APLU regarding feedback from research universities, medical centers, and related stakeholders on proposed revisions to the Common Rule, as outlined in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Overall, there was considerable concern and widespread opposition among respondents, particularly surrounding the proposed changes to the r
2011_COGR_SURVEY
The document is a comprehensive survey instrument designed to collect detailed data on Facilities and Administrative (F&A) rate calculations from educational institutions, specifically spanning the years 2006 through 2011 and comparing these to rates calculated approximately a decade earlier (FY1997-FY2001). It organizes the data collection around several key areas: historical F&A rates by
F&ASurvey
The 2016 F&A Survey, discussed during the June 2016 COGR Meeting in Washington, DC, pertains to the practices and experiences of research universities regarding Facilities and Administrative (F&A) cost rates. The survey, organized by COGR's Costing Policies Committee—comprised of university representatives from across the United States—aims to collect comprehensive data on F&A rat
