What should be disclosed to research participants?

Debate surrounding the SUPPORT study highlights the absence of consensus regarding what information should be disclosed to potential research participants. Some commentators endorse the view that clinical research should be subject to high disclosure standards, even when it is testing standard-of-care interventions. Others argue that trials assessing standard-of-care interventions need to disclose only the information that is disclosed in the clinical care setting. To resolve this debate, it is important to identify the ethical concerns raised by clinical research and determine what consent process is needed to address them.

Curbing misconduct in the pharmaceutical industry: insights from behavioral ethics and the behavioral approach to law

Two insights of psychology on which we would like to draw are that people react to law in more complex ways than rational-choice models assume and that good people sometimes do bad things. With that starting point, this article provides a behavioral perspective on some of the factors that policymakers seeking to reduce the level of misconduct in the pharmaceutical industry should consider. Effective regulation and enforcement need to address the following questions: Who are the regulation's targeted actors - researchers or executives? Are the regulations directed toward research or marketing activities? Is the misconduct a product of explicit rational choice or implicit processes of which the actor is unaware? Is it reasonable to address all types of misconduct using the same approach? Certain misconduct - particularly by researchers - is due to automatic, intuitive, and unconscious decisions and needs to be addressed through different means than those used to address misconduct due to controlled, deliberate decisions. This article therefore recommends using different sorts of regulation depending on the context. It suggests more tailored enforcement mechanisms that will be sensitive to the pharmaceutical researchers' unique work motivations and to their awareness or lack of awareness of their own misconduct.

The future of conflicts of interest: a call for professional standards

Stricter policies regarding conflicts of interest policies will increase transparency but have limitations and unintended adverse consequences. Physicians and the medical profession should take the lead in developing policies, rather than responding to external regulations. The goal is to reduce significant risks of undue influence, while keeping the burdens and opportunity costs of policies acceptable.

Accountability and pediatric physician-researchers: are theoretical models compatible with Canadian lived experience?

Physician-researchers are bound by professional obligations stemming from both the role of the physician and the role of the researcher. Currently, the dominant models for understanding the relationship between physician-researchers' clinical duties and research duties fit into three categories: the similarity position, the difference position and the middle ground. The law may be said to offer a fourth "model" that is independent from these three categories.These models frame the expectations placed upon physician-researchers by colleagues, regulators, patients and research participants. This paper examines the extent to which the data from semi-structured interviews with 30 physician-researchers at three major pediatric hospitals in Canada reflect these traditional models. It seeks to determine the extent to which existing models align with the described lived experience of the pediatric physician-researchers interviewed.Ultimately, we find that although some physician-researchers make references to something like the weak version of the similarity position, the pediatric-researchers interviewed in this study did not describe their dual roles in a way that tightly mirrors any of the existing theoretical frameworks. We thus conclude that either physician-researchers are in need of better training regarding the nature of the accountability relationships that flow from their dual roles or that models setting out these roles and relationships must be altered to better reflect what we can reasonably expect of physician-researchers in a real-world environment.

Incidental findings in data-intensive postgenomics science and legal liability of clinician-researchers: ready for vaccinomics?

Vaccinomics encompasses a host of multiomics approaches to characterize variability in host-environment (including pathogens) interactions, with a view to a more directed or personalized use of vaccine-based health interventions. Although vaccinomics has the potential to reduce adverse effects and increase efficacy of vaccines, the use of high-throughput, data-intensive technologies may also lead to unanticipated discoveries beyond the initial aims of a vaccinomics study--discoveries that could be highly significant to the health of the research participants. How do clinician-researchers faced with such information have to act? What are the attendant legal duties in such circumstances and how do they differ from the duties of non-clinician researchers? Together with a critical analysis of the international laws and policies framing researchers' duties with regard to incidental findings, this article also draws from Quebec's civil law--with its rich jurisprudence on clinician and researcher liability--as a case study to evaluate the potential legal implications associated with vaccinomics investigations. Given previous lessons learned from other data-intensive sciences, the education of clinician-researchers with regard to their roles, limitations, and legal obligations remains an important strategy to prevent potential legal complications and civil liability in vaccinomics research in the postgenomics era.