Rethinking research ethics

Ethical issues when conducting health research with military personnel: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to understand the scope and nature of evidence in relation to the ethical issues that arise when conducting health research with military personnel.

INTRODUCTION

Ethical obligations in human research have been debated for centuries. Historically, research conducted with military personnel has led to ethical controversies regarding autonomy, harm, and informed consent. In particular, the power dynamics, hierarchical nature, and culture that are inherent in military structures may compromise the voluntary nature of research participation.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review will include all sources of evidence that identify ethical issues, such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, within health research with military personnel, including reservists. This review will exclude sources of evidence on health research conducted during combat or on new technologies for fighting in wars.

METHODS

This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A 3-step search strategy will be used to obtain both published and unpublished sources of evidence. Two independent reviewers will screen sources of evidence against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. No limits on language will be applied; we will use Google Translate to translate sources of evidence in languages other than English. Sources of evidence published since 1964 will be included. Data will be extracted using a purpose-designed spreadsheet and the results will be summarized descriptively and presented in tabular format.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/db85p.

Protecting the Vulnerable and Including the Under-Represented: IRB Practices and Attitudes

Since their inception, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been charged with protecting the vulnerable in research. More recently, attention has turned to whether IRBs also have a role to play in ensuring representative study samples and promoting the inclusion of historically under-represented groups. These two aims-protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented-can pull in different directions, given the potential for overlap between the vulnerable and the under-represented. We conducted a pilot, online national survey of IRB Chairs to gauge attitudes and practices with regard to protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented in research. We found that IRBs extend the concept of vulnerability to different groups across various contexts, are confident that they effectively protect vulnerable individuals in research, and believe that IRBs have a role to play in ensuring representative samples and the inclusion of under-represented groups.

Religion at Work in Bioethics and Biopolicy: Christian Bioethicists, Secular Language, Suspicious Orthodoxy

The proper role, if any, for religion-based arguments is a live and sometimes heated issue within the field of bioethics. The issue attracts heat primarily because bioethical analyses influence the outcomes of controversial court cases and help shape legislation in sensitive biopolicy areas. A problem for religious bioethicists who seek to influence biopolicy is that there is now widespread academic and public acceptance, at least within liberal democracies, that the state should not base its policies on any particular religion's metaphysical claims or esoteric moral system. In response, bioethicists motivated by religious concerns have adopted two identifiable strategies. Sometimes they rely on slippery-slope arguments that, sometimes at least, have empirically testable premises. A more questionable response is the manipulation and misuse of secular-sounding moral language, such as references to "human dignity," and the plights of groups of people labeled "vulnerable."

Systematic review: bioethical implications for COVID-19 research in low prevalence countries, a distinctly different set of problems

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented extraordinary challenges to worldwide healthcare systems, however, prevalence remains low in some countries. While the challenges of conducting research in high-prevalence countries are well published, there is a paucity from low COVID-19 countries.

Methods

A PRISMA guided systematic review was conducted using the databases Ovid-Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science to identify relevant articles discussing ethical issues relating to research in low prevalence COVID-19 countries.

Results

The search yielded 133 original articles of which only 2 fit the inclusion criteria and aim, with neither specific to low prevalence. Most of the available literature focused on clinical management and resource allocation related to high prevalence countries. These results will be discussed under the ethical dimensions of equity, individual liberty, privacy and confidentiality, proportionality, public protection, provision of care, reciprocity, stewardship and trust..

Conclusions

A systematic review failed to identify articles relating to COVID-19 research ethics, specific to low prevalence countries. It shows that there is a significant gap in the literature that warrants further investigation. Common ethical principles were used to present a distinct set of challenges experienced by a country with a low prevalence of COVID-19. This unique perspective of some of the common ethical problems surrounding research, may help guide further discussion and guide research in similar countries.

Vulnerability in human research

The conduct of prior ethics review of human research projects helps to protect vulnerable groups or populations from potential negative impacts of research. Contemporary considerations in human research considers the concept of vulnerability in terms of access to research opportunities, impacts on the consenting process, selection bias, and the generalisability of results. Recent work questions the validity of using enumerated lists as a check box approach to protect research participants from exploitation. Through the use of broad categories to treat cohorts of human research participants as homogenous classes and label some participants as vulnerable merely because they are members of a particular class, some ethics reviewers have used the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research to strip individuals of their "ethical equality". Labelling people as vulnerable does not help researchers or human research ethics committee members develop an understanding of the complexities of applying the principles of respect and of justice in ethical decision-making. Conversely, defining specific cohorts of research participants as needing nuanced ethical consideration, due to their vulnerable nature, may imply that other population groups need not be considered vulnerable. We contend that this assumption is erroneous. This paper explores the way that human research ethics guidance documents treat vulnerability within the Australian context and draws on contemporary discussion to focus an alternative perspective based on the principles in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research for researchers and human research ethics committee members to consider.

Does Resolution 8430 of 1993 respond to the current needs of ethics in health research with human beings in Colombia?

Verifying the compliance with the ethical principles of health research legitimizes its exercise in the eyes of the society and allows for the resolution of ethical dilemmas that emerge from new research interests and methods. Resolution 8430 of 1993 is one of the main ethical guidelines governing health research on human beings in Colombia. Considering that the resolution has not been revised or updated since its promulgation it becomes necessary to evaluate its current validity and adequacy to address the potential ethical dilemmas in the existing country’s health research. Some gaps, contradictions, and aspects that require a deep review are detailed in this paper from a wide conception of health research areas and methods. After discussing the main weaknesses and inaccuracies, some alternatives are proposed to adjust the resolution to the present needs in health research with human beings.

Genomic Essentialism: Its Provenance and Trajectory as an Anticipatory Ethical Concern

Since the inception of large-scale human genome research, there has been much caution about the risks of exacerbating a number of socially dangerous attitudes linked to human genetics. These attitudes are usually labeled with one of a family of genetic or genomic "isms" or "ations" such as "genetic essentialism," "genetic determinism," "genetic reductionism," "geneticization," "genetic stigmatization," and "genetic discrimination." The psychosocial processes these terms refer to are taken to exacerbate several ills that are similarly labeled, from medical racism and psychological fatalism to economic exploitation and social exclusion. But as genomic information becomes more familiar in clinical and research settings as well as other life activities, do we need to continue to worry so much about this family of attitudes and their impact on existing problems? In genomics, the underlying anxiety has been that disclosure of genomic information will trigger a series of (seemingly unavoidable) negative responses that will affect individuals, their families, and their communities at large. The fundamental social challenges that hyperbolic genomic messaging, low genomic literacy, and "folk biology" help sustain remain to be addressed. If we hope to break the cycle of genomic isms and ations, we will have to get better at resisting overinterpretations of the relevance that genomics has for people's future potentials, ancestral vulnerabilities, community memberships, and ethnic affiliations.

Research Translation and Emerging Health Technologies: Synthetic Biology and Beyond

New health technologies are rapidly emerging from various areas of bioscience research, such as gene editing, regenerative medicine and synthetic biology. These technologies raise promising medical possibilities but also a range of ethical considerations. Apart from the issues involved in considering whether novel health technologies can or should become part of mainstream medical treatment once established, the process of research translation to develop such therapies itself entails particular ethical concerns. In this paper I use synthetic biology as an example of a new and largely unexplored area of health technology to consider the ways in which novel health technologies are likely to emerge and the ethical challenges these will present. I argue that such developments require us to rethink conventional attitudes towards clinical research, the roles of doctors/researchers and patients/participants with respect to research, and the relationship between science and society; and that a broader framework is required to address the plurality of stakeholder roles and interests involved in the development of treatments based on novel technologies.

"For Their Own Good": A Response to Popular Arguments Against Permitting Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) where Mental Illness Is the Sole Underlying Condition

Canada is approaching its federal government's review of whether patients should be eligible for medical assistance in dying (MAID) where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition, and when "natural death" is not "reasonably foreseeable". For those opposed, arguments involve the following themes: capacity, value of life, vulnerability, stigma, irremediability, and the role of physicians. It has also been suggested that those who are able-bodied should have to kill themselves, even though suicide may be painful, lonely, and violent. Opponents of MAID for severe, refractory suffering due to mental illness imply that it is acceptable to remove agency from such patients on paternalistic grounds. After years of efforts to destigmatise mental illness, these kinds of arguments effectively declare all patients with mental illness, regardless of capacity, unable to make considered choices for themselves. The current paper argues that decisions about capacity must be made on an individual-patient basis. Given the rightful importance granted to respect for patient autonomy in liberal democracies, the wholesale removal of agency advocated by opponents of a permissive MAID regime is difficult to reconcile with Canadian constitutional values.

The status of research ethics in social work

Research ethics provide important and necessary standards related to the conduct and dissemination of research. To better understand the current state of research ethics discourse in social work, a systematic literature search was undertaken and numbers of publications per year were compared between STEM, social science, and social work disciplines. While many professions have embraced the need for discipline-specific research ethics subfield development, social work has remained absent. Low publication numbers, compared to other disciplines, were noted for the years (2006-2016) included in the study. Social work published 16 (1%) of the 1409 articles included in the study, contributing 3 (>1%) for each of the disciplines highest producing years (2011 and 2013). Comparatively, psychology produced 75 (5%) articles, psychiatry produced 64 (5%) articles, and nursing added 50 (4%) articles. The STEM disciplines contributed 956 (68%) articles between 2006 and 2016, while social science produced 453 (32%) articles. Examination of the results is provided in an extended discussion of several misconceptions about research ethics that may be found in the social work profession. Implications and future directions are provided, focusing on the need for increased engagement, education, research, and support for a new subfield of social work research ethics.

Our Life Depends on This Drug: Competence, Inequity, and Voluntary Consent in Clinical Trials on Supervised Injectable Opioid Assisted Treatment

Supervised injectable opioid assisted treament (siOAT) prescribes injectable opioids to individuals for whom other forms of addiction treatment have been ineffective. In this article, we examine arguments that opioid-dependent people should be assumed incompetent to voluntarily consent to clinical research on siOAT unless proven otherwise. We agree that concerns about competence and voluntary consent deserve careful attention in this context. But we oppose framing the issue solely as a matter of the competence of opioid-dependent people and emphasize that it should be considered in the context of inequities in access to siOAT as a medical treatment. Consequently, we suggest that bioethics literature on nonexploitation, which focuses on clinical research in low-income countries, is helpful due to locating ethical issues within systemic social conditions. Finally, we consider the implications of our argument for the ethics of clinical research on siOAT.

Critical analysis of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences 2016 International Guidelines for health-related research involving humans

This paper presents a preliminary discussion of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), recently issued “International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans” (2016) that acknowledges the document’s declared concern of the protection of human subjects and awareness of their needs and interests in “low-resource settings”. Nevertheless, guideline recommendations present exceptional situations –vulnerability, mental incompetence- wherein voluntary and consented participation may be reduced or omitted under three concurrent conditions: compelling scientific value, the need to include persons that will not benefit directly from participation, exposure to minimal or slight risks. CIOMS 2016 extends the range of issues than need deliberation and regulation, but it does not clarify controversial issues in research ethics. The indetermination of special situations that would allow incomplete or absent informed disclosure weakens rigorous ethical norms and opens up to slippery slopes of permissiveness that may be harmful to host-nations and participants of biomedical studies.

Trust me, I'm a researcher!: The role of trust in biomedical research

In biomedical research lack of trust is seen as a great threat that can severely jeopardise the whole biomedical research enterprise. Practices, such as informed consent, and also the administrative and regulatory oversight of research in the form of research ethics committees and Institutional Review Boards, are established to ensure the protection of future research subjects and, at the same time, restore public trust in biomedical research. Empirical research also testifies to the role of trust as one of the decisive factors in research participation and lack of trust as a barrier for consenting to research. However, what is often missing is a clear definition of trust. This paper seeks to address this gap. It starts with a conceptual analysis of the term trust. It compares trust with two other related terms, those of reliance and trustworthiness, and offers a defence of Baier's attribute of 'good will' a basic characteristic of trust. It, then, proceeds to consider trust in the context of biomedical research by examining two questions: First, is trust necessary in biomedical research?; and second, do increases in regulatory oversight of biomedical research also increase trust in the field? This paper argues that regulatory oversight is important for increasing reliance in biomedical research, but it does not improve trust, which remains important for biomedical research. It finishes by pointing at professional integrity as a way of promoting trust and trustworthiness in this field.

A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation

This paper makes a plea for more reflexive attempts to develop and anchor the emerging concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI). RRI has recently emerged as a buzzword in science policy, becoming a focus of concerted experimentation in many academic circles. Its performative capacity means that it is able to mobilise resources and spaces despite no common understanding of what it is or should be 'made of'. In order to support reflection and practice amongst those who are interested in and using the concept, this paper unpacks understandings of RRI across a multi-disciplinary body of peer-reviewed literature. Our analysis focuses on three key dimensions of RRI (motivations, theoretical conceptualisations and translations into practice) that remain particularly opaque. A total of 48 publications were selected through a systematic literature search and their content was qualitatively analysed. Across the literature, RRI is portrayed as a concept that embeds numerous features of existing approaches to govern and assess emerging technologies. Our analysis suggests that its greatest potential may be in its ability to unify and provide political momentum to a wide range of long-articulated ethical and policy issues. At the same time, RRI's dynamism and resulting complexity may represent its greatest challenge. Further clarification on what RRI has to offer in practice-beyond what has been offered to date-is still needed, as well as more explicit engagement with research and institutional cultures of responsibility. Such work may help to realise the high political expectations that are attached to nascent RRI.

Beneficence as a principle in human research

Beneficence is one of the four principles that form the basis of the Australian National Statement. The aim of this paper is to explore the philosophical development of this principle and to clarify the role that beneficence plays in contemporary discussions about human research ethics. By examining the way that guidance documents, particularly the National Statement, treats beneficence we offer guidance to researchers and human research ethics committee members on the practical application of what can be a conceptually difficult principle.

Risks of phase I research with healthy participants: A systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Tragedies suggest that phase I trials in healthy participants may be highly risky. This possibility raises concern that phase I trials may exploit healthy participants to develop new therapies, making the translation of scientific discoveries ethically worrisome. Yet, few systematic data evaluate this concern. This article systematically reviews the risks of published phase I trials in healthy participants and evaluates trial features associated with increased risks.

METHODS

Data on adverse events and trial characteristics were extracted from all phase I trials published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and PsycINFO (1 January 2008-1 October 2012). Inclusion criteria were phase I studies that enrolled healthy participants of any age, provided quantitative adverse event data, and documented the number of participants enrolled. Exclusion criteria included (1) adverse event data not in English, (2) a "challenge" study in which participants were administered a pathogen, and (3) no quantitative information about serious adverse events. Data on the incidence of adverse events, duration of adverse event monitoring, trial agent tested, participant demographics, and trial location were extracted.

RESULTS

In 475 trials enrolling 27,185 participants, there was a median of zero serious adverse events (interquartile range = 0-0) and a median of zero severe adverse events (interquartile range = 0-0) per 1000 treatment group participants/day of monitoring. The rate of mild and moderate adverse events was a median of 1147.19 per 1000 participants (interquartile range = 651.52-1730.9) and 46.07 per 1000 participants/adverse event monitoring day (interquartile range = 17.80-77.19).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that phase I trials do cause mild and moderate harms but pose low risks of severe harm. To ensure that this conclusion also applies to unpublished trials, it is important to increase trial transparency.

After the revolution? Ethical and social challenges in 'personalized genomic medicine'

Personalized genomic medicine (PGM) is a goal that currently unites a wide array of biomedical initiatives, and is promoted as a 'new paradigm for healthcare' by its champions. Its promissory virtues include individualized diagnosis and risk prediction, more effective prevention and health promotion, and patient empowerment. Beyond overcoming scientific and technological hurdles to realizing PGM, proponents may interpret and rank these promises differently, which carries ethical and social implications for the realization of PGM as an approach to healthcare. We examine competing visions of PGM's virtues and the directions in which they could take the field, in order to anticipate policy choices that may lie ahead for researchers, healthcare providers and the public.

The re-emergence of the liberal-communitarian debate in bioethics: exercising self-determination and participation in biomedical research

Biomedical research has brought to the fore the issue of which rights and duties we have to each other and society. Several scholars have advocated reframing the notion of participation, arguing that we have a moral duty to participate in research from which we all benefit. However, less attention has been paid to how we justify and defend the concept of self-determination and what the implications are in a biomedical setting. The author discusses the value and importance of self-determination on the basis of the framework of the liberal-communitarian debate. Biobank research is used as an example of a project wherein, through our participation, we confirm our sense of belonging to society and acknowledge our mutual dependence on each other. We need a richer concept of self-determination that encompasses both liberal and communitarian insights in order to make sense of the value we attach to self-determination.

Contextualising merit and integrity within human research

The first consideration of any Australian Human Research Ethics Committee should be to satisfy itself that the project before them is worth undertaking. If the project does not add to the body of knowledge, if it does not improve social welfare or individual wellbeing then the use of human participants, their tissue or their data must be questioned. Sometimes, however, committees are criticised for appearing to adopt the role of scientific review committees. The intent of this paper is to provide researchers with an understanding of the ethical importance of demonstrating the merit of their research project and to help them develop protocols that show ethics committees that adequate attention has been paid to this central tenet in dealing ethically with human research participants. Any person proposing human research must be prepared to show that it is worthwhile. This paper will clarify the relationship between research merit and integrity, research ethics and the responsibilities of human research ethics committees.

e-Health Technologies in Home Care Nursing

The innovative impact of advancing e-Health technologies is more frequently being discussed in nursing science. Nurses play an important role in collecting data and giving support to other users, especially in home care. Since issues of acceptance play a major role, the following article, which presents findings based on a focus group consisting of the elderly, caretaking relatives and professional nurses, is discussed from an ethical point of view in the context of international debate. It is interesting to note, that to some extent there is substantial ambivalence in the willingness to integrate such technologies into daily care. A need for technical assistance is clearly recognizable, however, limits as well. The authors’ findings indicate that a fundamental discussion on the relevance of e-Health methods in professional nursing needs to be held. It should address the ethical questions of often conflicting interests and rights (protection of identity, privacy and safety) in situations of high vulnerability.

The improper use of research placebos

RATIONALE

Reasons given for the routine use of placebos in Phase III clinical research are not convincing. Ethically inadequate strategies such as using placebos and recruiting the mentally incompetent for non-therapeutic research are allegedly permissible because research is purportedly aimed at benefiting the common weal.

METHOD AND RESULTS

A review of current literature concludes that placebos are not equivalent to inactive substances, as has been amply shown in clinical use; in research settings they may actually be harmful, for patients recruited as research subjects often develop expectations that are all the more frustrated if they receive a control substance that is not therapeutic but may show unexpected side effects. Supposedly inert control substances have met with strong opposition, for patients are placed at risk of becoming therapeutic orphans when their current medication is withdrawn and they have a 50% chance of being randomized to the inactive control arm. Using placebos, it is claimed, increase the internal validity of a study, but this concern appears misplaced when scant attention to external validity is given.

CONCLUSIONS

Although rejected and disregarded by many investigators, it is an accepted practice that control groups should receive the best treatment in existence, not what is locally available nor a placebo. Inactive comparators should only be used when no effective medications exists for the disease under scrutiny. Bioethics should be wary of the tenuous justifications presented, as researchers rarely resort to placebos in their own sponsor countries, while actively endorsing them in Third World nations where most of their trials are being located.

Ethnography and the ethics of undertaking research in different mental healthcare settings

This paper draws on our experiences of seeking research ethics and management approval for a 1-year ethnographic research study in three mental health settings. We argue that the increased bureaucratization of research governance in the UK is paternalistic and unfit for qualitative, non-interventionist study designs. The classification of all mental health services users as 'vulnerable' is also disempowering and contrary to government calls to increase user involvement in research processes. We relate our difficulties in accessing National Health Service sites to undertake our study despite endorsement by senior managers. The current research ethics system reinforces the gatekeeping role of front-line National Health Service staff but this may work to bias samples in favour of 'amenable' service users and exclude others from having their views and experiences represented in studies over the long-term.

Research with the doubly vulnerable population of individuals who abuse alcohol: an ethical dilemma

Individuals who have maladaptive patterns of drinking alcohol fall into the category of vulnerable research participants for many reasons, not the least of which includes the stigma often placed on individuals who abuse alcohol. Vulnerable subgroups within the population of people who abuse alcohol include women; older adults; incarcerated, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and mentally ill individuals; as well as people from racial minorities. Thus, as research participants, individuals who abuse alcohol can be labeled a doubly vulnerable population. Belonging to more than one population simultaneously can lead to a compromised ability to protect one's own interests or greater susceptibility to harm related to participation in research studies. Arguments against including people who abuse alcohol as research participants will be presented, followed by the argument for including theses individuals, which is suggested as the more ethically sound of the two points of view.

Unique characteristics of emergency care research: scope, populations, and infrastructure

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program and the 2006 Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report on the future of emergency care highlight the need for coordinated emergency care research (ECR) to improve the outcomes of acutely ill or injured patients. In response, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) sponsored the Emergency Care Research Network (ECRN) Conference in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2008. The conference objectives were to identify the unique nature of ECR and the infrastructure needed to support ECR networks and to understand the optimal role of emergency medicine (EM) and other acute care specialties in research networks. Prior to the conference, participants responded to questions addressing the relevant issues that would form the basis of breakout session discussions; two of these breakout questions are summarized in this report: 1) what makes EM research unique? and 2) what are the critical components needed to establish and maintain networked ECR? Emergency care research was defined as "the systematic examination of patient care that is expected to be continuously available to diverse populations presenting with undifferentiated symptoms of acute illness, or acutely decompensated chronic illness, and whose outcomes depend on timely diagnosis and treatment." The chain of ECR may extend beyond the physical emergency department (ED) in both place and time and integrate prehospital care, as well as short- and long-term outcome determination. ECR may extend beyond individual patients and have as the focus of investigation the actual system of emergency care delivery itself and its effects on the community with respect to access to care, use of resources, and cost. Infrastructure determinants of research network success identified by conference participants included multidisciplinary collaboration, accurate long-term outcome determination, novel information technology, intellectual infrastructure, and wider network relationships that extend beyond the ED.

The obligation to participate in biomedical research

The current prevailing view is that participation in biomedical research is above and beyond the call of duty. While some commentators have offered reasons against this, we propose a novel public goods argument for an obligation to participate in biomedical research. Biomedical knowledge is a public good, available to any individual even if that individual does not contribute to it. Participation in research is a critical way to support an important public good. Consequently, all have a duty to participate. The current social norm is that individuals participate only if they have a good reason to do so. The public goods argument implies that individuals should participate unless they have a good reason not to. Such a shift would be of great aid to the progress of biomedical research, eventually making society significantly healthier and longer lived.

Clinical and research ethics as moral strangers

This article takes issue with those who defend a brand of clinical research ethics that tends to substitute the ethics of clinical care of patients being recruited as trial subjects. The distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic studies is being disregarded by arguing that research is concerned with the pursuit of knowledge rather than with the medical benefits for patients. Non-competent patients may therefore be recruited for studies that will offer them no medical benefits in spite of involving them in the inherent risks of any biomedical trial. Supported by the World Medical Association, clinicians tend to shun the use of placebos in randomized trials, because of the therapeutic void created in the control group. Nevertheless, investigators continue to consider that scientific purity demands the use of placebos as the most appropriate comparator, even if risks to patient-subjects are increased. Equipoise and clinical equipoise have been suggested as adequate criteria to evaluate the need for a clinical trial, when genuine uncertainty about the equivalence of medical measures requires clarification. If equipoise is understood as a balanced situation where alternatives are equivalent and exchangeable in the view of experienced and current medical thought, no comparison seems warranted until a substantiated doubt about their true equivalence appears. Whereas respecting equipoise is an important measure to curb redundant research, new trials become mandatory if equivalence is reliably questioned. In the best interests of patients being recruited for clinical trials, they should continue to be the full beneficiaries of clinical ethics, in addition to receiving the protection of research ethics. Placebos and sub-medication for control groups are to be used sparingly, and best existing therapy should be employed as control when new and promising agents are developed.

Changing perspectives in biobank research: from individual rights to concerns about public health regarding the return of results

During the past decade, various guidelines that imply a duty for researchers to disclose information obtained through research to participants have emerged. The character and extent of this obligation have been debated extensively, with much attention devoted to the decisiveness of the validity and utility of the results in question. The aim of this paper is to argue that individual results from research on materials stored in large-scale biobanks, consisting of samples taken within the healthcare system or of altruistically donated materials, should not be returned. We will defend the thesis that medical research on these biobanks should be viewed as a collective project to improve public health, and that available resources should be utilized to pursue this goal. We argue that there is a need for a change of perspectives. Medical research should not primarily be viewed as a danger that individuals must be protected from, but rather be recognized as constituting a necessary defense against current and future diseases. Research that bears the prospect of advancing medicine and that can be carried out at no risk to individuals should be endorsed and facilitated. This calls for a shift of focus from autonomy and individual rights toward collective responsibility and solidarity.

CQ Sources/Bibliography

These CQ Sources were compiled by Bette Anton.

Payments to normal healthy volunteers in phase 1 trials: avoiding undue influence while distributing fairly the burdens of research participation

Clinical investigators must engage in just subject recruitment and selection and avoid unduly influencing research participation. There may be tension between the practice of keeping payments to participants low to avoid undue influence and the requirements of justice when recruiting normal healthy volunteers for phase 1 drug studies. By intentionally keeping payments low to avoid unduly influenced participation, investigators, on the recommendation or insistence of institutional review boards, may be targeting or systematically recruiting healthy adult members of lower socio-economic groups for participation in phase 1 studies. Investigators are at risk of routinely failing to fulfill the obligation of justice, which prohibits the systematic targeting and recruiting of subjects for reasons unrelated to the nature of the study. Insofar as we take seriously the obligation to engage in just subject recruitment and selection, I argue that we must acknowledge the implications low payments might have for subject recruitment and selection and examine the effect of low payments. If low payments de facto target the less well-off for phase 1 studies, we must defend the priority ranking of the obligation to avoid undue influence over the obligation of justice or adopt an alternative recruitment approach. This paper identifies a number of alternatives to the current system of low-value payments to research participants.

Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: reviewing the ethical arguments

BACKGROUND

The advent of AIDS brought about a group of patients unwilling to accept crucial aspects of the methodological standards for clinical research investigating Phase 1 drugs, surgeries or devices. Their arguments against placebo controls in trials, which depended--at the time--on the terminal status of patient volunteers led to a renewed discussion of the ethics of denying patients with catastrophic illnesses access to last-chance experimental drugs, surgeries or devices.

SOURCES OF DATA

Existing ethics and health policy literature on the topic of access to experimental drugs.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

The positions of those arguing for or against free access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients are irreconcilable.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

At stake are questions about the kinds of personal sacrifices society can reasonably expect patients in clinical trials to make to ensure statistically predictive results. These would benefit by necessity a much larger number of current and future patients--the conflict is about individual versus public interests. It is also about the question of whether or not the state can legitimately prevent patients with terminal illnesses from unfettered access to experimental drugs, surgeries or devices in order to motivate them to participate in clinical trials. We review the ethical arguments for and against the provision of access to Phase 1 agents for terminally ill patients.

GROWING POINTS

Finding a compromise between providing free or no access to Phase 1 drugs for terminally ill patients.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

We ought to investigate means to increase access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients without sacrificing necessary clinical trials' sounds scientific methods.