PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 22, 2011
Research Participants Protection Modernization Act of 2011 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require all human subject research conducted or supported by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or otherwise subject to HHS regulation to be conducted in accordance with HHS Human Subject Regulations and, if applicable, the vulnerable-population rules.
Requires all human subject research on drugs or biological products to be conducted in accordance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations and, if applicable, the vulnerable populations rule.
Requires the Secretary of HHS to make assistance available to any federal department or agency seeking to: (1) improve the regulation or oversight of human subject research, or (2) apply the HHS Human Subject Regulations or the vulnerable populations rules.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to determine whether any HHS Human Subject Regulations should be modified after considering specified matters, including financial conflicts of interest.
Sets forth notification requirements for investigators submitting a proposal for human subject research to an institutional review board, including regarding any significant financial interest. Requires the institution served by an institutional review board to review such significant financial interests and seek to eliminate or manage any conflict of interest.
Prohibits the Secretary from awarding a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract to a public entity or private academic institution for research unless the entity or institution maintains or contracts for a program to educate investigators and board members on the protection of human subjects in research.
Codifies the establishment of the Office for Human Research Protections in the Office of Secretary of HHS. Authorizes the Director of such Office to make grants for the development of model education programs that may be used by institutions served by institutional review boards to promote best practices in institutional management of human subject research.
People & committees
Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2625 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2625 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2625 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2625 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.