Viewing benefit sharing in global health research through the lens of Aristotelian justice

Rethinking benefit sharing in collaborative human genetic research from an Afrocommunitarian perspective

This article draws on reflections about humanness, friendliness and partiality, in the writings of Afro-communitarians to develop principles for thinking critically about why benefit sharing, what may count as benefits within the context of human research in Africa and the limits of the obligation of benefit sharing. Suppose the thinking about humanness, friendliness, and partiality in Afro-communitarianism were the foundation of human genetic research in Africa, then, individuals who have contributed to research or borne its burden would benefit from its rewards. This is even more important if participants have pressing needs that researchers and/or research institutions can help ease. A failure to aid sample contributors and data providers in need when researchers and research institutions can—as well as an indifference to the serious needs of contributors—are failures to exhibit friendliness in the relevant ways. Finally, though providing benefits to contributors can be an important way of showing humanity to them, nonetheless, this obligation is not absolute and may be limited by the stronger obligation of shared experience—to advance science. Studies are still required to inquire how well these norms will work in practice and inform regulatory and legal frameworks.

Combatting neo-Colonialism in Health Research: What can Aboriginal Health Research Ethics and Global Health Research Ethics Teach Each Other?

The ethics of research involving Aboriginal populations and low and middle-income country populations each developed out of a long history of exploitative research projects and partnerships. Commonalities and differences between the two fields have not yet been examined. This study undertook two independent literature searches for Aboriginal health research ethics and global health research ethics. Content analysis identified shared and differently emphasised ethical principles and concepts between the two fields. Shared ethical concepts like "benefit" and "capacity development" have been developed to guide collaborations in both Aboriginal health research and global health research. However, Aboriginal health research ethics gives much greater prominence to ethical principles that assist in decolonising research practice such as "self-determination", "community-control", and "community ownership". The paper argues that global health research ethics would benefit from giving greater emphasis to these principles to guide research practice, while justice as approached in global health research ethics may inform Aboriginal health research practice. With increasing attention being drawn to the need to decolonise global health research, the lessons Aboriginal health research ethics can offer may be especially timely.

Participant compensation in global health research: a case study

Background

Compensation for research participants can be provided for reasons including reimbursement of costs; compensation for time lost, discomfort or inconvenience; or expression of appreciation for participation. This compensation involves numerous ethical complexities, at times entailing competing risks. In the context of transnational research, often incorporating contexts of economic inequality, power differentials and post-colonialism, these issues extend into wider questions of ethical research conduct.

Methods

We describe experiences of conducting a community-based study of air pollution in southern Malawi incorporating ethnographic, participatory and air quality monitoring elements. Decisions surrounding participant compensation evolved in response to changing circumstances in the field.

Results

Attention to careful researcher–participant relationships and responsiveness to community perspectives allowed dynamic, contextualised decision-making around participant compensation. Despite widely cited risks, including but not restricted to undue influence of monetary compensation on participation, we learned that failure to adequately recognise and compensate participants has its own risks, notably the possibility of ‘ethics dumping’.

Conclusions

We recommend active engagement with research participants and communities with integration of contextual insights throughout, including participant compensation, as for all elements of research conduct. Equitable research relationships encompass four central values: fairness, care, honesty and respect.