Viewpoint: developing a research ethics consultation service to foster responsive and responsible clinical research

Research Ethics for Behavior Analysts in Practice

Behavior analysts in practice have an advantage over many others in the helping professions-they have at their disposal a robust science of behavior change informed primarily by single-case experimental research designs. This is advantageous because the research literature is focused on individual behavior change and has direct relevance to behavior analysts who need to change the behavior of individuals in need. Also, the same experimental designs used to advance the basic and applied sciences can be used to evaluate and refine specific procedures as they are put into practice. Thus, behavior-analytic research and practice are often intertwined. However, when behavior analysts in practice conduct research and use their own clients as participants, several important ethical issues need to be considered. Research with human participants is subject to careful ethical oversight, but the ethical guidelines that have been developed are usually described in terms of research conducted by nonpractitioners working in universities or institutions. This article focuses on several areas of special concern when conducting research in practice settings, including dual relationships and conflicts of interest, obtaining informed consent, and using ethical review panels.

Research Ethics Consultation in Nursing Studies

Despite the importance and acceptance of research ethics consultation as an entity in many medical research areas, little is known about its status in nursing research. Focusing on inquiries from nurse researchers, we retrospectively analyzed records of integrated clinical research consultation, provided by members of the Clinical Research Center independently of the research ethics committee, at a Japanese university hospital during 2018-2019. Among various consultations in nursing studies (n = 101), 43 were related to research ethics. The main issues in research ethics consultation were compatibility with guidelines (n = 28; 65%) and application of ethics review (n = 12; 28%). Future studies should investigate international settings and address the relevance of research ethics consultation to promote proper nursing studies.

The advantages of peer review over arbitration for resolving authorship disputes

A recent commentary argued for arbitration to resolve authorship disputes within academic research settings explaining that current mechanisms to resolve conflicts result in unclear outcomes and institutional power vested in senior investigators could compromise fairness. We argue here that arbitration is not a suitable means to resolve disputes among researchers in academia because it remains unclear who will assume the costs of arbitration, the rules of evidence do not apply to arbitration, and decisions are binding and very difficult to appeal. Instead of arbitration, we advocate for peer-based approaches involving a peer review committee and research ethics consultation to help resolve authorship disagreements. We describe the composition of an institutional peer review committee to address authorship disputes. Both of these mechanisms are found, or can be formed, within academic institutions and offer several advantages to researchers who are likely to shy away from legalistic processes and gravitate towards those handled by their peers. Peer-based approaches are cheaper than arbitration and the experts involved have knowledge about academic publishing and the culture of research in the specific field. Decisions by knowledgeable and neutral experts could reduce bias, have greater authority, and could be appealed. Not only can peer-based approaches be leveraged to resolve authorship disagreements, but they may also enhance collegiality and promote a healthy team environment.

Research ethics consultation: an attempt and 5-year experience in a Japanese University Hospital

Objective

Research ethics consultation is an advisory activity that differs from ethics committees, and its role is not yet widely known in Japan. Research ethics consultations were started in 2012 by members of the Clinical Trial Center of Tokushima University Hospital, a support section for clinical trials. We analyzed the research ethics consultation records from Tokushima University Hospital during the 5-year period of 2012–2016 to examine the Japanese context of research ethics consultation.

Results

During the study period, 125 research ethics consultations were carried out, 115 (91%) before starting studies. All but one request were from investigators at Tokushima University. The main issue was compatibility with guidance and regulations (n = 74, 67.2%), such as ethical handling of human biological specimens and information utilized in research; only 6 (4.8%) requests involved research ethics issues that investigators face in their research. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the consultation function, with a nationwide system of consultant education and data sharing. Moreover, standardization of consultation should be considered.

The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science

Social responsibility is an essential part of the responsible conduct of research that presents difficult ethical questions for scientists. Recognizing one's social responsibilities as a scientist is an important first step toward exercising social responsibility, but it is only the beginning, since scientists may confront difficult value questions when deciding how to act responsibly. Ethical dilemmas related to socially responsible science fall into at least three basic categories: 1) dilemmas related to problem selection, 2) dilemmas related to publication and data sharing, and 3) dilemmas related to engaging society. In responding to these dilemmas, scientists must decide how to balance their social responsibilities against other professional commitments and how to avoid compromising their objectivity. In this article, we will examine the philosophical and ethical basis of social responsibility in science, discuss some of the ethical dilemmas related to exercising social responsibility, and make five recommendations to help scientists deal with these issues.

Research ethics consultation: ethical and professional practice challenges and recommendations

The complexity of biomedical research has increased considerably in the last decade, as has the pace of translational research. This complexity has generated a number of novel ethical issues for clinical investigators, institutional review boards (IRBs), and other oversight committees. In response, many academic medical centers have created formal research ethics consultation (REC) services to help clinical investigators and IRBs navigate ethical issues in biomedical research. Key functions of a REC service include assisting with research design and implementation, providing a forum for deliberative exploration of ethical issues, and supplementing regulatory oversight. As increasing numbers of academic research institutions establish REC services, there is a pressing need for consensus about the primary aims and policies that should guide these activities. Establishing clear expectations about the aims and policies of REC services is important if REC programs are to achieve their full potential. Drawing on the experiences of a Clinical and Translational Science Award Research Ethics Consultation Working Group, this article describes three major ethical and professional practice challenges associated with the provision of REC: (1) managing multiple institutional roles and responsibilities, (2) managing sensitive information, and (3) communicating with consultation requestors about how these issues are managed. The paper also presents several practical strategies for addressing these challenges and enhancing the quality of REC services.

A Pharmaceutical Bioethics Consultation Service: Six-Year Descriptive Characteristics and Results of a Feedback Survey

Background: Bioethics consultations are conducted in varied settings, including hospitals, universities, and other research institutions, but there is sparse information about bioethics consultations conducted in corporate settings such as pharmaceutical companies. The purpose of this article is to describe a bioethics consultation service at a pharmaceutical company, to report characteristics of consultations completed by the service over a 6-year period, and to share results of a consultation feedback survey. Methods: Data on the descriptive characteristics of bioethics consultations were collected from 2008 to 2013 and analyzed in Excel 2007. Categorical data were analyzed via the pivot table function, and time-based variables were analyzed via formulas. The feedback survey was administered to consultation requesters from 2009 to 2012 and also analyzed in Excel 2007. Results: Over the 6-year period, 189 bioethics consultations were conducted. The number of consultations increased from five per year in 2008 to approximately one per week in 2013. During this time, the format of the consultation service was changed from a committee-only approach to a tiered approach (tailored to the needs of the case). The five most frequent topics were informed consent, early termination of a clinical trial, benefits and risks, human biological samples, and patient rights. The feedback survey results suggest the consultation service is well regarded overall and viewed as approachable, helpful, and responsive. Conclusions: Pharmaceutical bioethics consultation is a unique category of bioethics consultation that primarily focuses on pharmaceutical research and development but also touches on aspects of clinical ethics, business ethics, and organizational ethics. Results indicate there is a demand for a tiered bioethics consultation service within this pharmaceutical company and that advice was valued. This company's experience indicates that a bioethics consultation service raises awareness about bioethics, empowers employees to raise bioethical concerns, and helps them reason through challenging issues.

Building a Central Repository for Research Ethics Consultation Data: A Proposal for a Standard Data Collection Tool

Clinical research ethics consultation services have been established across academic health centers over the past decade. This paper presents the results of collaboration within the CTSA consortium to develop a standard approach to the collection of research ethics consultation information to serve as a foundation for quality improvement, education, and research efforts. This approach includes categorizing and documenting descriptive information about the requestor, research project, the ethical question, the consult process, and describing the basic structure for a consult note. This paper also explores challenges in determining how to share some of this information between collaborating institutions related to concerns about confidentially, data quality, and informatics. While there is much still to be learned to improve the process of clinical research ethics consultation, these tools can advance these efforts, which, in turn, can facilitate the ethical conduct of research.

The establishment of research ethics consultation services (RECS): an emerging research resource

Emphasis on translational research to facilitate progression from the laboratory into the community also creates a dynamic in which ethics and social policy questions and solutions are ever pressing. In response, academic institutions are creating Research Ethics Consultation Services (RECS). All Clinical Translational Science Award institutions were surveyed in early 2010 to determine which institutions have a RECS in operation and what is their composition and function. Of the 46 institutions surveyed, 33 (70%) have a RECS. Only 15 RECS have received any consult requests in the last year. Issues that are common among these relatively nascent services include relationships with institutional oversight committees, balancing requestor concerns about confidentiality with research integrity and human subjects protection priorities, tracking consult data and outcomes, and developing systems for internal evaluation. There is variability in how these issues are approached. It will be important to be attentive to the institutional context to develop an appropriate approach. Further data about the issues raised by requestors and the recommendations provided are necessary to build a community of scholars who can navigate and resolve ethical issues encountered along the translational research pathway.

Triggers for research ethics consultation

Research ethics consultation services are designed to help scientists address ethical and societal issues that may not be considered in the context of existing regulatory frameworks, such as institutional review boards. Here, we identify some types of biomedical research for which the research process can benefit from consultation with ethicists.

Barriers to Considering Ethical and Societal Implications of Research: Perceptions of Life Scientists

BACKGROUND: As part of an empirical study investigating how life scientists think about ethical and societal implications of their work, and about life science research in general, we sought to elucidate barriers that scientists might face in considering such implications. METHOD: Between 2005 and 2007, we conducted a study consisting of phone interviews, focus groups, and a national survey of life scientists at biomedical research institutions. The study population included graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, faculty, clinical instructors, and research staff. We analyzed data through qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS: In analyzing the data, we found that life scientists do, in fact, face barriers to considering ethical and societal implications of research. We categorized these barriers as falling into four broad domains: (1) lack of awareness of ethical and societal implications; (2) lack of relevance of such concerns to their specific research; (3) self-confidence in their ability to resolve such concerns; and (4) aspects of the daily practice of science itself. CONCLUSIONS: Life science researchers experience elements inherent in their training and in the conduct of science as barriers to thinking about ethical and societal implications related to their work. These findings suggest areas in which research ethics educators, bioethicists, and the scientific community can focus their efforts to improve social and ethical accountability in research.

Toward evidence-based conflicts of interest training for physician-investigators

The increased focus in recent years on the risks posed by conflicts of interest arising from financial relationships between physician-investigators and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries has led to a variety of measures that can broadly be described as "regulatory" interventions, including new federal and state laws, criminal prosecutions and private lawsuits, requirements attached to government funding, and institutional policies. Studies suggest, however, that physician-investigators have not internalized the message that financial conflicts of interest have the potential to influence their decision making. Simply informing physician-investigators of the content of relevant rules and the consequences of noncompliance - as appears to be the practice in many existing compliance training activities - is unlikely to lead to lasting changes in norms or behavior. Instead, we theorize that, for trainings to be maximally effective, they must appeal to the complex intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that contribute to individuals' willingness to comply with regulatory mandates. In addition, physician-investigators' beliefs that the risks posed by conflicts of interest do not apply to them need to be challenged. Rigorous evaluation of the newly-designed training programs will help determine whether these theories are borne out in fact.

Research ethics I: Responsible conduct of research (RCR)--historical and contemporary issues pertaining to human and animal experimentation

PURPOSE

In this series of articles--Research Ethics I, Research Ethics II, and Research Ethics III--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity. In Research Ethics I, they present a historical overview of the evolution of RCR in the United States then examine the evolution of human and animal experimentation from the birth of scientific medicine through World War II to the present day.

METHOD

They relied on authoritative documents, both historical and contemporary, insightful commentary, and empirical research in order to identify current issues and controversies of potential interest to both faculty and students.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors have written this article from a historical perspective because they think all readers interested in RCR should appreciate how the history of science and all the good--and harm--it has produced can inform how researchers practice responsible research in the 21st century and beyond.

An informatics-based tool to assist researchers in initiating research at an academic medical center: Vanderbilt Customized Action Plan

The regulatory review and approval process is a significant part of the workflow associated with initiating clinical and translational research projects. Ambiguity concerning submission requirements and expected times associated with the review process can create additional work for research teams and ultimately delay important scientific projects. In an effort to provide assistance to investigators, we have developed an online interactive interface which elicits basic study characteristics for a single project and subsequently produces a list of required administrative applications needed for approval along with clear instructions concerning expectations from the research team. This system, the Vanderbilt Customized Action Plan (V-CAP), was launched in October 2006 and has been well received by researchers. In this article, the authors present (1) the V-CAP project design, (2) a reference workflow associated with Vanderbilt policies and regulations, (3) the V-CAP metrics of use by Vanderbilt research teams, and (4) a list of recommendations for other academic centers considering a similar systems-based approach for helping researchers efficiently navigate processes related to regulatory approval. The informatics-systems-based approach of the V-CAP is scalable to other academic medical centers and may serve as a useful model to help researchers navigate the complexity of the regulatory approvals process.

CQ Sources/Bibliography

These CQ Sources were compiled by Bette Anton.

Toward a better bioethics: commentary on "Forbidding science: some beginning reflections"

It has been argued that bioethicists too often tend to represent the interests of scientists and not of the broader polity. Indeed, bioethicists seem predisposed to discard the voices and viewpoints of all but the cognoscenti. Focusing particularly on human pluripotent stem cell research, this commentary explores a variety of characterizations of bioethics and bioethicists in relation to forbidding science. Rather than proselytizing or prohibiting, bioethicists should work in partnership with scientists and publics to craft scientifically well-informed and morally sophisticated debates about forbidding science.

Biomedical scientists' perceptions of ethical and social implications: is there a role for research ethics consultation?

BACKGROUND

Research ethics consultation programs are being established with a goal of addressing the ethical, societal, and policy considerations associated with biomedical research. A number of these programs are modelled after clinical ethics consultation services that began to be institutionalized in the 1980s. Our objective was to determine biomedical science researchers' perceived need for and utility of research ethics consultation, through examination of their perceptions of whether they and their institutions faced ethical, social or policy issues (outside those mandated by regulation) and examination of willingness to seek advice in addressing these issues. We conducted telephone interviews and focus groups in 2006 with researchers from Stanford University and a mailed survey in December 2006 to 7 research universities in the U.S.

FINDINGS

A total of 16 researchers were interviewed (75% response rate), 29 participated in focus groups, and 856 responded to the survey (50% response rate). Approximately half of researchers surveyed (51%) reported that they would find a research ethics consultation service at their institution moderately, very or extremely useful, while over a third (36%) reported that such a service would be useful to them personally. Respondents conducting human subjects research were more likely to find such a service very to extremely useful to them personally than respondents not conducting human subjects research (20% vs 10%; chi(2) p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that biomedical researchers do encounter and anticipate encountering ethical and societal questions and concerns and a substantial proportion, especially clinical researchers, would likely use a consultation service if they were aware of it. These findings provide data to inform the development of such consultation programs in general.

Neuroimaging and disorders of consciousness: envisioning an ethical research agenda

The application of neuroimaging technology to the study of the injured brain has transformed how neuroscientists understand disorders of consciousness, such as the vegetative and minimally conscious states, and deepened our understanding of mechanisms of recovery. This scientific progress, and its potential clinical translation, provides an opportunity for ethical reflection. It was against this scientific backdrop that we convened a conference of leading investigators in neuroimaging, disorders of consciousness and neuroethics. Our goal was to develop an ethical frame to move these investigative techniques into mature clinical tools. This paper presents the recommendations and analysis of a Working Meeting on Ethics, Neuroimaging and Limited States of Consciousness held at Stanford University during June 2007. It represents an interdisciplinary approach to the challenges posed by the emerging use of neuroimaging technologies to describe and characterize disorders of consciousness.

Strangers at the benchside: research ethics consultation

Institutional ethics consultation services for biomedical scientists have begun to proliferate, especially for clinical researchers. We discuss several models of ethics consultation and describe a team-based approach used at Stanford University in the context of these models. As research ethics consultation services expand, there are many unresolved questions that need to be addressed, including what the scope, composition, and purpose of such services should be, whether core competencies for consultants can and should be defined, and how conflicts of interest should be mitigated. We make preliminary recommendations for the structure and process of research ethics consultation, based on our initial experiences in a pilot program.