The human subjects protection committee is the principal legal mechanism for protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research. In this article the author explores the influence of variations in the structure of the review process and in the composition and operating procedures of the committees on committee performance. He also assesses revisions in the review process proposed by the National Commission on the Protection of Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.

In 1976 the author published the results of a study of antitrust class actions in the Northern District of Illinois. At the time the data for that study were collected a substantial portion of the cases included in the study were pending. In the present article the author reassesses the findings of his earlier study on the basis of newly collected data on the cases that were then pending. Among the issues discussed are the comparative burdensomeness of class and nonclass cases, the alleged in terrorem effect of the class action on antitrust defendants, and the results achieved through the use of the class action.

Educational research is increasingly subject to legal restrictions designed for the protection of human subjects of research. In this article the author discusses legal restrictions–both in the courts and under HEW regulations–on educational research, comparing these restrictions with those on biomedical research. He finds that although educational research in particular instances may give rise to suits for damages for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of psychological distress, the legal issues relating to educational research will most often be resolved in proceedings before institutional review boards charged by HEW with the responsibility for passing upon proposals to conduct research on human subjects. He argues that the interests protected in proceedings before institutional review boards are not limited to those that have received judicial recognition in suits for damages. The author finds that the requirement that the informed consent of subjects be obtained presents difficult issues for educational research. He notes in particular the problems presented by research proposals that as an element of the research design contemplate the observation of subjects without their knowledge and the use of children as research subjects.

Private treble damage actions have long been recognized to play a major role in antitrust enforcement. The present study evaluates the impact of the class action on private antitrust enforcement in one large commercial district, the Northern District of Illinois. Data were collected through attorney interviews and from the docket books and files of the clerk of the court on all antitrust treble damage actions not transferred to some other district that were filed from the inception of the amendment to rule 23 on July 1, 1966, through June 30, 1973.

The common question class action has been a source of division and controversy in the legal community. Hailed by its proponents as both a means for small claimants to obtain redress and a deterrent to corporate wrongdoing, the class action has been attacked by others as tantamount to “legalized blackmail” and as threatening to swamp the already overburdened judicial system with proceedings of extraordinary complexity. Two empirical studies of the class action have also reached diametrically opposed conclusions. A study by the American College of Trial Lawyers found that the common question class action suit “has mandated heavy expenditures of judicial time, effort and expense” and has sacrificed “procedural and substantive fairness to the party opposing the class,” while a study commissioned by the Senate Commerce Committee found that most class actions “proceed with reasonable smoothness in the Federal court.” Proposals to restrict the use of class actions have been advanced. While these proposals have not been adopted, the courts have increasingly limited the circumstances under which class actions may be maintained.