Research Regulation and RAPC

 Since at least 1991, for both human and animal research, all states in the U.S rely on rigorous ongoing protocol reviews overseen by federally-mandated Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), IACUCs, the FDA, DEA, and funders such as NIH to assure appropriate study design, safety, and human (and animal) subject protection. California, which created RAPC in 1965 to oversee such research prior to any such regulation, is the only state with such added oversight. RAPC became obsolete, vastly inferior to other mandated regulation, and acts only as an extreme hindrance to conducting research using controlled substances or any addiction treatment research in California.

 Federally-Mandated Regulators each have the ability to unilaterally terminate any study. Each regulator also has authority to audit a study at any time.

 RAPC review, which is unique to California, happens AFTER all other regulators have reviewed a study, when the study is ready to go into the field, and requires an additional 5-18 months. Because review happens after federally-mandated regulators, meaningful changes generally cannot be made to studies. RAPC feedback is considered worthless by investigators throughout the state of California. Review happens only once, in contrast to other regulators which require repeated review (usually annual or more often) and provide ongoing monitoring of study activities.