Justice, diversity, and research ethics review

Return of polygenic risk scores in research: Stakeholders' views on the eMERGE-IV study

Research on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for common, genetically complex chronic diseases aims to improve health-related predictions, tailor risk-reducing interventions, and improve health outcomes. Yet, the study and use of PRSs in clinical settings raise equity, clinical, and regulatory challenges that can be greater for individuals from historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and other minoritized communities. As part of the National Human Genome Research Institute-funded Electronic Medical Records and Genomics IV Network, we conducted online focus groups with patients/community members, clinicians, and members of institutional review boards to explore their views on key issues, including PRS research, return of PRS results, clinical translation, and barriers and facilitators to health behavioral changes in response to PRS results. Across stakeholder groups, our findings indicate support for PRS development and a strong interest in having PRS results returned to research participants. However, we also found multi-level barriers and significant differences in stakeholders' views about what is needed and possible for successful implementation. These include researcher-participant interaction formats, health and genomic literacy, and a range of structural barriers, such as financial instability, insurance coverage, and the absence of health-supporting infrastructure and affordable healthy food options in poorer neighborhoods. Our findings highlight the need to revisit and implement measures in PRS studies (e.g., incentives and resources for follow-up care), as well as system-level policies to promote equity in genomic research and health outcomes.

Defining interventions and metrics to improve diversity in CNS clinical trial participation: A SNO and RANO effort

Despite major strides in cancer research and therapy, these advances have not been equitable across race and ethnicity. Historically marginalized groups (HMG) are more likely to have inadequate preventive screening, increased delays in diagnosis, and poor representation in clinical trials. Notably, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people represent 30% of the population but only 9% of oncology clinical trial participants. As a result, HMGs lack equitable access to novel therapies, contradicting the principle of distributive justice, as enshrined in the Belmont report, which demands the equitable selection of subjects in research involving human subjects. The lack of clinical trial diversity also leads to low generalizability and potentially harmful medical practices. Specifically, patients with brain cancer face unique barriers to clinical trial enrollment and completion due to disease-specific neurologic and treatment-induced conditions. Collectively, the intersection of these disease-specific conditions with social determinants of health fosters a lack of diversity in clinical trials. To ameliorate this disparity in neuro-oncology clinical trial participation, we present interventions focused on improving engagement of HMGs. Proposals range from inclusive trial design, decreasing barriers to care, expanding trial eligibility, access to tumor profiling for personalized medical trials, setting reasonable metrics and goals for accrual, working with patient community stakeholders, diversifying the neuro-oncology workforce, and development of tools to overcome biases with options to incentivize equity. The diversification of participation amongst neuro-oncology clinical trials is imperative. Equitable access and inclusion of HMG patients with brain tumors will not only enhance research discoveries but will also improve patient care.

Authorship equity in global health research: who gets the credit at University of California, San Francisco?

Authorship inequity exists in global health research and can be representative of unequal partnerships. Previous studies showed that low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) authors are under-represented in publications from global collaborative research between LMIC and high-income countries (HIC). However, there are little data on trends for how specific HIC institutions are performing concerning equitable authorship. We used Web of Science to find published articles affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), where an LMIC was referred to in the title, abstract or keywords from 2008 to 2021. The country affiliation of each author for all included articles was grouped based on World Bank data. A total of 5805 articles were included. On average, 53.6% (n=3109) of UCSF affiliated articles had at least one low-income country (LIC) or LMIC author; however, this number increased from 43.2% (n=63) in 2008 to 63.3% (n=421) in 2021. Overall, 16.3% (n=948) of UCSF affiliated articles had an LIC or LMIC researcher as the first author, 18.8% (n=1,059) had an LIC or LMIC researcher as second author, and 14.2% (n=820) had an LIC or LMIC researcher as last author. As long as manuscripts produced by UCSF have no LIC or LMIC authors included the university's commitment to authentic equity is undermined. Global health partnerships cannot be equitable without changing authorship trends between HIC and LMIC institutions.

Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems in Geriatrics: An Ethical Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To provide an ethical analysis of the implications of the usage of artificial intelligence-supported clinical decision support systems (AI-CDSS) in geriatrics.

DESIGN

Ethical analysis based on the normative arguments regarding the use of AI-CDSS in geriatrics using a principle-based ethical framework.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Normative arguments identified in 29 articles on AI-CDSS in geriatrics.

METHODS

Our analysis is based on a literature search that was done to determine ethical arguments that are currently discussed regarding AI-CDSS. The relevant articles were subjected to a detailed qualitative analysis regarding the ethical considerations Supplementary Datamentioned therein. We then discussed the identified arguments within the frame of the 4 principles of medical ethics according to Beauchamp and Childress and with respect to the needs of frail older adults.

RESULTS

We found a total of 5089 articles; 29 articles met the inclusion criteria and were subsequently subjected to a detailed qualitative analysis. We could not identify any systematic analysis of the ethical implications of AI-CDSS in geriatrics. The ethical considerations are very unsystematic and scattered, and the existing literature has a predominantly technical focus emphasizing the technology's utility. In an extensive ethical analysis, we systematically discuss the ethical implications of the usage of AI-CDSS in geriatrics.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

AI-CDSS in geriatrics can be a great asset, especially when dealing with patients with cognitive disorders; however, from an ethical perspective, we see the need for further research. By using AI-CDSS, older patients' values and beliefs might be overlooked, and the quality of the doctor-patient relationship might be altered, endangering compliance to the 4 ethical principles of Beauchamp and Childress.

Review of diversity, equity, and inclusion by ethics committees: A Delphi consensus statement

The appropriate representation of diverse populations in interventional trials remains problematic. A Delphi process was used to affirm the central role that ethics committees and institutions play in this process and to establish consensus upon 25 consolidated recommendations across four themes to promote diversity and inclusion in interventional clinical research.

Diversity and inclusion for rodents: how animal ethics committees can help improve translation

Translation failure occurs when a treatment shown to be safe and effective in one type of population does not produce the same result in another. We are currently in a crisis involving the translatability of preclinical studies to human populations. Animal trials are no better than a coin toss at predicting the safety and efficacy of drugs in human trials, and the high failure rate of drugs entering human trials suggests that most of the suffering of laboratory animals is futile, creating no commensurate benefit for human patients. Here, I argue that animal ethics committees have a role to play in getting us out of this crisis. Inadequate representation is a known contributor to translation failures and is a matter of both scientific and ethical concern. Ethical review committees have the authority to address it by reprioritising the values already enshrined in their guiding principles.

IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight.

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.

Pharmacogenomics and health disparities, are we helping?

Pharmacogenomics has been at the forefront of precision medicine during the last few decades. Precision medicine carries the potential of improving health outcomes at both the individual as well as population levels. To harness the benefits of its initiatives, careful dissection of existing health disparities as they relate to precision medicine is of paramount importance. Attempting to address the existing disparities at the early stages of design and implementation of these efforts is the only guarantee of a successful just outcome. In this review, we glance at a few determinants of existing health disparities as they intersect with pharmacogenomics research and implementation. In our opinion, highlighting these disparities is imperative for the purpose of researching meaningful solutions. Failing to identify, and hence address, these disparities in the context of the current and future precision medicine initiatives would leave an already strained health system, even more inundated with inequality.

Providing Public Engagement Training to Build Connections Between the Community and Research Ethics Professionals: A Pilot Project

There is growing interest for research ethics professionals to engage with members of the public, yet they often lack the training needed to engage effectively. The STEM Ambassador Program provides a promising framework for training research ethics professionals to form authentic community connections and carry out effective engagement activities based on shared interests and values. The experiences of ten research administrators who participated in a pilot of the STEM Ambassador training for research ethics professionals are presented. Post-training surveys of the research administrators indicate that they valued the training and the skills obtained, and intend to continue with public engagement activities with support of their leadership.

Diversity in IRB Membership: Views of IRB Chairpersons at U.S. Universities and Academic Medical Centers

BACKGROUND

Diversity in Institutional Review Board (IRB) membership is important for both intrinsic and instrumental reasons, including fairness, promoting trust, improving decision quality, and responding to systemic racism. Yet U.S. IRBs remain racially and ethnically homogeneous, even as gender diversity has improved. Little is known about IRB chairpersons' perspectives on membership diversity and barriers to increasing it, as well as current institutional efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within IRB membership.

METHODS

We surveyed IRB chairpersons leading U.S. boards registered with the Office for Human Research Protections. Here, we focus exclusively on responses from a subset of 388 chairpersons of IRBs at universities and academic medical centers (AMCs).

RESULTS

Board chairs were predominantly white and evenly split between men and women. Only about half reported that their boards had at least one member who is Black or African American (51%), Asian (56%), or Hispanic (48%), with 85% of university/AMC boards comprised entirely (15%) or mostly (70%) of white members. Most IRB chairpersons (64%) reported satisfaction with the current diversity of their membership. Participants largely agreed that considering diversity in the selection of IRB members is important (91%), including to improve the quality of IRB deliberation (80%), with an emphasis on racial/ethnic (85%) and gender diversity (74%). Most participants (80%) reported some type of active DEI effort regarding board membership at their university/AMC and just over half (57%) expressed satisfaction with these efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our national survey found that although university/AMC IRB chairpersons report valuing diversity in board membership, it may be lacking in key areas. Going forward, it will be important to specify clear reasons for diversity in the IRB context, as well to establish targets for acceptable levels of board diversity and to match DEI efforts to those targets.

Reviewing fair subject selection considerations for the unique case of post sequelae COVID-19 translational studies

Fair inclusion of research subjects is necessary to ensure that post-acute sequelae COVID-19 (PASC) research results benefit all members of society. Scientists should conduct research on a broad sample of individuals who represent clinically relevant factors influencing a disease. Without demographic diversity and sociological and environmental variability, research outputs are less likely to apply to different populations and would thus increase health disparities. The goal of this narrative literature review and ethical analysis is to apply fair selection criteria to PASC research studies. We briefly highlight the importance of fair subject selection in translational research and then identify features of PASC, as well as PASC research, that hinder fair inclusion of research participants. We will demonstrate that determining an adequate and representative sample is not simply a matter of ensuring greater diversity; rather, fairness requires a broader evaluation of risks, burdens, and benefits specific to underrepresented populations. We provide recommendations to ensure fair subject selection in PASC research and promote translation toward positive health outcomes for all individuals, including the most vulnerable.