I read with great interest Dr. Michael Glick’s October JADA editorial, "Ethical Considerations in Publishing Research Involving Human Subjects" (
JADA 2007;138[10]:1300–1[Free Full Text]
). It is unfortunate and disappointing that there is such a prevailing misunderstanding of how human research is conducted, leading to manuscripts that must be rejected and research that must be questioned. Dr. Glick provides an excellent description of the history and beginnings of the research ethics framework by which we work today.
I would like to offer some personal insight on why this misunderstanding exists. The problem starts with a lack of understanding of research in dental school. Only a few dental students ever engage in research, and it is almost always performed voluntarily. Only this small percentage may remember that an institutional review board (IRB) is a key element to be addressed before starting any research project.
Dental schools must offer courses in understanding dental literature and how dental research is conducted. Dental schools must offer more students the opportunity to participate in clinical studies and, most importantly, the faculty must engage in more research.
Because most dentists do not work out of a hospital, many private practitioners are unaware of the proper protocols required to engage in human subjects research. Well-meaning dental graduates who have never performed clinical research may someday decide to embark on answering some good research questions on their own, but, owing to a lack of clinical research education in dental school, their ideas and data will never make it to print and will never be shared with others. This increases the frustration of the new researcher even further, and many of these first-timers will never attempt another project.
Dental schools must offer courses in understanding dental literature and how dental research is conducted. Dental schools must offer more students the opportunity to participate in clinical studies and, most importantly, the faculty must engage in more research.
For the dental graduate/private practitioner who has little experience with research, a novel network called Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) has made it possible to conduct clinical studies in the course of routine patient care. This practice-based research network was formed in 2005 after the New York University College of Dentistry received a $26.7 million award from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research to expand the research evidence base in dentistry. The PEARL infrastructure includes its own IRB.
Practice-based research networks may have a profound effect on research in dentistry. Every investigator in these networks signs up because he or she wants to [participate]. Where was this passion in dental school? Schools and faculty have an enormous and profound task ahead of them—making research for dental students a palatable priority. This should be this generation of dental faculty’s legacy.
[The opinions expressed in this letter are the private views of the author, and should not be construed as reflecting official policies of the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Department of Defense or the U.S. government.]
