Transparency in controversial research: A review of human embryo research publication ethical disclosure statements

In 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) released updated guidelines that included human embryo research guidance. Requiring ethics statements in publications using human embryos is one way to verify adherence to these guidelines. A review of top-tier biomedical journal requirements identified only one publisher that requires a human embryo statement. A review of articles using human embryos from top-tier biomedical journals found that all contain some form of ethics statement, but they differ in content and location. Requiring ethics statements with specific elements could improve transparency and adherence to research guidelines.

Pediatric Decision Making: Consensus Recommendations

Despite apparent disagreement in the scholarly literature on standards of pediatric decision making, a recognition that similar norms underpin many of the dominant frameworks motivated a June 2022 symposium "Best Interests and Beyond: Standards of Decision Making in Pediatrics" in St Louis, MO. Over the course of this 3-day symposium, 17 expert scholars (see author list) deliberated on the question "In the context of US pediatric care, what moral precepts ought to guide parents and clinicians in medical decision making for children?" The symposium and subsequent discussion generated 6 consensus recommendations for pediatric decision making, constructed with the primary goals of accessibility, teachability, and feasibility for practicing clinicians, parents, and legal guardians. In this article, we summarize these recommendations, including their justification, limitations, and remaining concerns.

Ethical, legal, regulatory, and policy issues concerning embryoids: a systematic review of the literature

Recent advances in methods to culture pluripotent stem cells to model human development have resulted in entities that increasingly have recapitulated advanced stages of early embryo development. These entities, referred to by numerous terms such as embryoids, are becoming more sophisticated and could resemble human embryos ever more closely as research progresses. This paper reports a systematic review of the ethical, legal, regulatory, and policy questions and concerns found in the literature concerning human embryoid research published from 2016 to 2022. We identified 56 papers that use 53 distinct names or terms to refer to embryoids and four broad categories of ethical, legal, regulatory, or policy considerations in the literature: research justifications/benefits, ethical significance or moral status, permissible use, and regulatory and oversight challenges. Analyzing the full range of issues is a critical step toward fostering more robust ethical, legal, and social implications research in this emerging area and toward developing appropriate oversight.

Ethics Considerations in Laws Restricting Incapacitated Patients' Access to ECT

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a safe and effective treatment used for numerous psychiatric conditions. While many patients for whom ECT is indicated are able to give voluntary informed consent, some lack decision-making capacity (DMC), at least temporarily. Case reports from numerous countries involving ECT for patients who lack DMC indicate overall positive outcomes and high patient satisfaction with results comparable with those of consenting patients; some patients regain DMC with ECT. Laws and regulations pertaining to ECT vary widely around the world and across the United States. Many United States jurisdictions over-regulate ECT relative to other interventions with comparable risks and potential benefits. While laws restricting whether and under what circumstances patients who lack DMC may receive ECT likely are aimed at protecting incapacitated persons, such laws sometimes undermine important ethics obligations and should be re-evaluated.

Counselling, Research Gaps, and Ethical Considerations Surrounding Pregnancy in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Survival after solid-organ transplantation has improved significantly, and many contemporary transplant recipients are of childbearing potential. There are limited data to guide decision-making surrounding pregnancy after transplantation, variations in clinical practice, and significant knowledge gaps, all of which raise significant ethical issues. Post-transplant pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of maternal and fetal complications. Shared decision-making is a central aspect of patient counselling but is complicated by significant knowledge gaps. Stakeholder interests can be in conflict; exploring these tensions can help patients to evaluate their options and inform their deliberations. We argue that uniform, evidence-based recommendations for pregnancy after solid organ transplantation are needed. Conducting research, including patient-engaged studies, in this area should be priority for the transplant community.

Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review

Geographical ancestry has been associated with an increased risk of various genetic conditions. Race and ethnicity often have been used as proxies for geographical ancestry. Despite numerous problems associated with the crude reliance on race and ethnicity as proxies for geographical ancestry, some genetic testing in the clinical, research, and employment settings has been and continues to be race- or ethnicity-based. Race-based or race-targeted genetic testing refers to genetic testing offered only or primarily to people of particular racial or ethnic groups because of presumed differences among groups. One current example is APOL1 testing of Black kidney donors. Race-based genetic testing raises numerous ethical and policy questions. Given the ongoing reliance on the Black race in genetic testing, it is important to understand the views of people who identify as Black or are identified as Black (including African American, Afro-Caribbean, and Hispanic Black) regarding race-based genetic testing that targets Black people because of their race. We conducted a systematic review of studies and reports of stakeholder-engaged projects that examined how people who identify as or are identified as Black perceive genetic testing that specifically presumes genetic differences exist among racial groups or uses race as a surrogate for ancestral genetic variation and targets Black people. Our review identified 14 studies that explicitly studied this question and another 13 that implicitly or tacitly studied this matter. We found four main factors that contribute to a positive attitude toward race-targeted genetic testing (facilitators) and eight main factors that are associated with concerns regarding race-targeted genetic testing (barriers). This review fills an important gap. These findings should inform future genetic research and the policies and practices developed in clinical, research, public health, or other settings regarding genetic testing.

Earning Mistrust through Fake Compromises and Broken Promises

Recent developments in human embryo research generate warranted public mistrust in science and scientists' willingness to honor commitments and respect limits. Patients, research participants, and society as a whole are asked to trust physicians, scientists, and biomedical institutions. Consistently honoring the laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines that govern science and health care practice is essential for earning and maintaining trust. Removing long-held and widely adopted limits on human embryo research, especially without publicly renegotiating a limit originally adopted following significant public discussion, undermines confidence in the self-regulation of science and the reliability of scientists' statements.

Impact of education on APOL1 testing attitudes among prospective living kidney donors

It is unknown how providing prospective living donors with information about APOL1, including the benefits and drawbacks of testing, influences their desire for testing. In this study, we surveyed 102 participants with self-reported African ancestry and positive family history of kidney disease, recruited from our nephrology waiting room. We assessed views on APOL1 testing before and after presentation of a set of potential benefits and drawbacks of testing and quantified the self-reported level of influence individual benefits and drawbacks had on participants' desire for testing in the proposed context of living donation. The majority of participants (92%) were aware of organ donation and more than half (56%) had considered living donation. And though we found no significant change in response following presentation of the potential benefits and the drawbacks of APOL1 testing by study end significance, across all participants, "becoming aware of the potential risk of kidney disease among your immediate family" was the benefit with the highest mean influence (3.3±1.4), while the drawback with the highest mean influence (2.9±1.5) was "some transplant centers may not allow you to donate to a loved one". This study provides insights into the priorities of prospective living donors and suggests concern for how the information affects family members may strongly influence desires for testing. It also highlights the need for greater community engagement to gain a deeper understanding of the priorities that influence decision making on APOL1 testing.

Ignorance is Not Bliss: The Case for Comprehensive Reproductive Counseling for Women with Chronic Kidney Disease

The bioethics literature has paid little attention to matters of informed reproductive decision-making among women of childbearing age who have chronic kidney disease (CKD), including women who are on dialysis or women who have had a kidney transplant. Women with CKD receive inconsistent and, sometimes, inadequate reproductive counseling, particularly with respect to information about pursuing pregnancy. We identify four factors that might contribute to inadequate and inconsistent reproductive counseling. We argue that women with CKD should receive comprehensive reproductive counseling, including information about the possibility of pursuing pregnancy, and that more rigorous research on pregnancy in women with CKD, including women on dialysis or who have received a kidney transplant, is warranted to improve informed reproductive decision making in this population.

Research on COVID-19: Stories from IRB Members, Research Administrators & Investigators

This symposium is separated into two sections. The first includes twelve personal stories from IRB members, administrators, or staff about their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The second section includes twelve personal stories from researchers. Six commentaries on these narratives are offered by experts in research ethics, regulatory oversite, IRB administration, the logistics of clinical research, and investigator responsibilities. These narratives and commentaries offer an inside look at how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the physical logistics of clinical research already underway, demanded immediate investment in scientific investigation of vaccines and treatments, and rerouted the usual decision pathways that guide ethical practice.

Human Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights From Behind-the-Scenes

The researchers' stories collected here demonstrate how many ethical and practical challenges routinely associated with conducting human research were amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. These challenges include designing studies to minimize risks and maximize potential benefits, working with institutional review boards (IRBs), recruiting and enrolling participants, obtaining valid informed consent, promoting data integrity, managing budget constraints, and finding time to fulfill research obligations along with other duties. By offering insights about not only the barriers and challenges researchers encountered but also the creative solutions they and their colleagues found to conduct research, this behind-the-scenes peek at researchers' experiences helps us to identify barriers and potential lasting improvements for human subjects research even in the best of times.

Rethinking Human Embryo Research Policies

It now seems technically feasible to culture human embryos beyond the "fourteen-day limit," which has the potential to increase scientific understanding of human development and perhaps improve infertility treatments. The fourteen-day limit was adopted as a compromise but subsequently has been considered an ethical line. Does it remain relevant in light of technological advances permitting embryo maturation beyond it? Should it be changed and, if so, how and why? What justifications would be necessary to expand the limit, particularly given that doing so would violate some people's moral commitments regarding human embryos? Robust stakeholder engagement preceded adoption of the fourteen-day limit and should arguably be part of efforts to reassess it. Such engagement could also consider the need for enhanced oversight of human embryo research. In the meantime, developing and implementing reliable oversight systems should help foster high-quality research and public confidence in it.

Building Norms for Organ Donation in China: Pitfalls and Challenges

In most, if not all, jurisdictions with active organ transplantation programs, there is a persistent desire to increase donation rates because the demand for transplantable organs exceeds the supply. China, in particular, faces an extraordinary gap between the number of organs donated by deceased donors and the number of people seeking one or more transplants. China might look to Western countries with higher donation rates to determine how best to introduce Western practices into the Chinese system. In attempting to increase its organ donation rate, China must not only ensure that its organ donation system reflects different Chinese cultural values, but also that it avoids the ethical problems of the United States and of other Western systems. This article examines four such problems. They concern the family, obtaining permission for organ donation, the definition and diagnosis of "brain death," and trust. Revisions to the Chinese system should involve a careful look to China and Chinese cultural resources rather than to Western models.

APOL1 Long-term Kidney Transplantation Outcomes Network (APOLLO): Design and Rationale

INTRODUCTION

Much of the higher risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in African American individuals relates to ancestry-specific variation in the apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1). Relative to kidneys from European American deceased-donors, kidneys from African American deceased-donors have shorter allograft survival and African American living-kidney donors more often develop ESKD. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored APOL1 Long-term Kidney Transplantation Outcomes Network (APOLLO) is prospectively assessing kidney allograft survival from donors with recent African ancestry based on donor and recipient APOL1 genotypes.

METHODS

APOLLO will evaluate outcomes from 2614 deceased kidney donor-recipient pairs, as well as additional living-kidney donor-recipient pairs and unpaired deceased-donor kidneys.

RESULTS

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, American Society of Transplantation, American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, and nearly all U.S. kidney transplant programs, organ procurement organizations (OPOs), and histocompatibility laboratories are participating in this observational study. APOLLO employs a central institutional review board (cIRB) and maintains voluntary partnerships with OPOs and histocompatibility laboratories. A Community Advisory Council composed of African American individuals with a personal or family history of kidney disease has advised the NIH Project Office and Steering Committee since inception. UNOS is providing data for outcome analyses.

CONCLUSION

This article describes unique aspects of the protocol, design, and performance of APOLLO. Results will guide use of APOL1 genotypic data to improve the assessment of quality in deceased-donor kidneys and could increase numbers of transplanted kidneys, reduce rates of discard, and improve the safety of living-kidney donation.

Suicidality, Depression, and the FDA: Health Inequities and the Ethical Conduct of Research

OBJECTIVE

Persons with mental health disorders, including suicidality, are underrepresented in clinical trials, undermining the generalizability of results and possibly contributing to health inequities. This report (1) documents the exclusion of persons with suicidality in trials used to secure US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for antidepressants, (2) describes barriers to inclusion, and (3) identifies possible steps for overcoming barriers.

METHODS

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for efficacy trials for depression or major depressive disorder described on FDA labels for 14 antidepressants approved from 1991 through 2013 were studied by reading the FDA labels, publications described on labels, and ClinicalTrials.gov entries for registered trials. Labels for drugs approved in or before 1998 were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed June 26, 2018. For drugs approved after 1998, labels are on the FDA website. Publications based on the trials described on FDA labels were identified through a PubMed search on October 23, 2018, using each drug name and trial or study as the keywords and setting no date limit.

RESULTS

For drugs approved from 1991 to 2000, of 36 publications identified, 26 did not mention suicidality, 7 excluded persons with suicidality but did not describe assessing suicidality with an instrument, 2 excluded persons with suicidality and described assessing suicidality using at least 1 instrument, and 1 included persons with suicidality. For drugs approved from 2000 through 2013, of 28 publications identified, 4 did not mention suicidality, 12 reported excluding persons with suicidality but did not describe assessing suicidality with an instrument, 12 excluded persons with suicidality and described assessing suicidality using at least one instrument, and none included persons with suicidality. More stringent criteria for assessing and excluding based on suicidality very likely were applied for drugs approved post-2000.

CONCLUSIONS

The exclusion of persons with suicidality from antidepressant trials is common, creating uncertainty about medication safety and efficacy in parts of the target population. Information about study populations can be beneficial for prescribing clinicians, but it is not always readily available.

APOL1 Genetic Testing in Living Kidney Transplant Donors

The presence of 2 apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) risk variants is associated with increased risk for chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. Inferior allograft outcomes following transplantation with kidneys from donors with 2 risk variants have also been reported. These data, coupled with anecdotal case reports and a recent cohort study of living donors, raise important questions about the potential increased kidney disease risk for living donors with APOL1 risk variants and the need for testing as part of the standard living donor evaluation process. We identify a series of questions that are central to the development of clinical policy regarding APOL1 testing of potential living kidney donors given the current uncertainty over the clinical implications of having 2 risk variants. We explore the ethical challenges that arise when determining when and to whom APOL1 testing should be offered, what potential donors should be told about APOL1 testing, how test results should be used to determine suitability for donation, if and when recipients should have access to results, and how clinical policy regarding APOL1 testing should be established.

Cancer and Fertility

This symposium includes 12 personal narratives from individuals who have faced a cancer diagnosis-either their own or their child's-where the disease itself, or their treatment, threatened future fertility. Three additional stories are available in the online supplement. Three commentaries on these narratives are written by an expert in oncofertility, a healthcare ethicist, and a pediatrician completing a fellowship in hematology/oncology. The observations and insights these authors share underscore the importance of addressing fertility loss and preservation early in the cancer journey. These contributions will help clinicians better understand the significance of fertility issues for children and younger adults diagnosed with cancer. They also can contribute to policy discussions about the role of health insurance in meeting the needs of cancer patients. Patients and families reading these stories and commentaries will appreciate learning from the experiences of others.

The "Ethics" Expertise in Clinical Ethics Consultation

The nature, possibility, and implications of ethics expertise (or moral expertise) in general and of bioethics expertise in particular has been the focus of extensive debate for over thirty years. What is ethics expertise and what does it enable experts to do? Knowing what ethics expertise is can help answer another important question: What, if anything, makes a claim of expertise legitimate? In other words, how does someone earn the appellation "ethics expert?" There remains deep disagreement on whether ethics expertise is possible, and if so, what constitutes such expertise and what it entails and legitimates. Discussion of bioethics expertise has become particularly important given the growing presence of bioethicists in the clinical setting as well as efforts to professionalize bioethics through codes of ethics and certification (or quasi-certification) efforts. Unlike in the law or in engineering, where there may be a body of knowledge that professional organizations or others have articulated as important for education and training of experts, ethics expertise admits of no such body of knowledge or required experience. Nor is there an entity seen as having the authority to articulate the necessary scope of knowledge. Questions about whether there is such a body of knowledge for particular areas within bioethics have emerged and played a central role in professionalization efforts in recent years, especially in the area of clinical ethics.

Expertise, Ethics Expertise, and Clinical Ethics Consultation: Achieving Terminological Clarity

The language of ethics expertise has become particularly important in bioethics in light of efforts to establish the value of the clinical ethics consultation (CEC), to specify who is qualified to function as a clinical ethics consultant, and to characterize how one should evaluate whether or not a person is so qualified. Supporters and skeptics about the possibility of ethics expertise use the language of ethics expertise in ways that reflect competing views about what ethics expertise entails. We argue for clarity in understanding the nature of expertise and ethics expertise. To be an ethics expert, we argue, is to be an expert in knowing what ought to be done. Any attempt to articulate expertise with respect to knowing what ought to be done must include an account of ethics that specifies the nature of moral truth and the means by which we access this truth or a theoretical account of ethics such that expertise in another domain is linked to knowing or being better at judging what ought to be done and the standards by which this "knowing" or "being better at judging" is determined. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our analysis for the literature on ethics expertise in CEC. We do think that there are clear domains in which a clinical ethics consultant might be expert but we are skeptical about the possibility that this includes ethics expertise. Clinical ethics consultants should not be referred to as ethics experts.

Prenatal screening and prenatal diagnosis: contemporary practices in light of the past

The 20th century eugenics movement in the USA and contemporary practices involving prenatal screening (PNS), prenatal diagnosis (PND), abortion and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) share important morally relevant similarities. I summarise some features of the 20th century eugenics movement; describe the contemporary standard of care in the USA regarding PNS, PND, abortion and PGD; and demonstrate that the 'old eugenics' the contemporary standard of care share the underlying view that social resources should be invested to prevent the birth of people with certain characteristics. This comparison makes evident the difficulty of crafting moral arguments that treat some uses of PNS, PND, abortion and PGD as licit and others as illicit.