Leo Alexander's Blueprint of the Nuremberg Code

BACKGROUND

Nazi Germany surrendered to the Allies on May 8, 1945. Six months later, the Allies tried the surviving leaders of Nazi Germany at the first Nuremberg trial. Later, the United States conducted 12 additional trials. The first one, The Unites States of America versus Karl Brandt et al., has been dubbed the Doctors' Trial. During the trial, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Dr. Andrew Ivy and Dr. Leo Alexander. At the end of the trial, Judge Sebring enunciated 10 principles needed to conduct human subject research-the Nuremberg Code. Authorship of the Code has been the subject of dispute, with both Ivy and Alexander claiming sole authorship.

METHODS

In the summer of 2017, I visited Duke University Medical Center's Archives and surveyed the contents of boxes labeled "Alexander's papers." I also explored online databases with information on the Doctors' Trial. Pertinent documents were compared across collections, and against scholarly works on the topic.

RESULTS

Box 3 of Alexander's papers at Duke University Medical Center's Archives contains a three-page document with six principles that, nearly word for word, were included in what is known as the Nuremberg Code. Alexander's name and appointment are typed at the end of the document.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the Nuremberg Code is likely to have been an unplanned collaboration among members of the prosecuting team and the judges, I present evidence suggesting that Alexander drafted the blueprint and was the main contributor to the final version of the Code.

The Importance of Engaging Children in Research Decision-Making: A Preliminary Mixed-Methods Study

Studies demonstrate deficiencies in parents' and children's comprehension of research and lack of child engagement in research decision-making. We conducted a cross-sectional and interview-based study of 31 parent-child dyads to describe decision-making preferences, experiences, and comprehension of parents and children participating in research. Parents and children reported that parents played a greater role in decisions about research participation than either parents or children preferred. The likelihood of child participation was associated with the extent of input the parent permitted the child to have in the decision-making process, the child's comprehension, whether the study team asked the child about participation, whether the child read study-related materials, the parent's marital status, and the child's race. Children had lower comprehension than adults. Comprehension was related to age, education, verbal intelligence, and reading of study-related information. Parent understanding was associated with prospect for benefit and illness severity. Child participation may be improved by increasing parent-child communication, emphasizing important relational roles between parent and child, respecting the developing autonomy of the child, increasing engagement with the study team, providing appropriate reading materials, and assessing comprehension.

Reducing Events of Noncompliance in Neurology Human Subjects Research: the Effect of Human Subjects Research Protection Training and Site Initiation Visits

In an effort to minimize protocol noncompliance in neurological research studies that can potentially compromise patient safety, delay completion of the study, and result in premature termination and added costs, we determined the effect of investigator trainings and site initiation visits (SIVs) on the occurrence of noncompliance events. Results of protocol audits conducted at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke from 2003 to 2019 on 97 research protocols were retrospectively analyzed. Based on the depth of auditing and provision of investigator research training, audit data were separated into four arms: 1) Early Period, 2003 to 2012; 2) Middle Period, 2013 to 2016; and Late Period, 2017 to 2019, further divided into 3) Late Period without SIVs; and 4) Late Period with SIVs. Events of noncompliance were classified by the type of protocol deviation, the category, and the cause. In total, 952 events occurred across 1080 participants. Protocols audited during the Middle Period, compared to the Early Period, showed a decrease in the percentage of protocols with at least 1 noncompliance event. Protocols with SIVs had a further decrease in major, minor, procedural, eligibility, and policy events. Additionally, protocols audited during the Early Period had on average 0.46 major deviations per participant, compared to 0.26 events in protocols audited during the Middle Period, and 0.08 events in protocols audited during the Late Period with SIVs. Protocol deviations and noncompliance events in neurological clinical trials can be reduced by targeted investigator trainings and SIVs. These measures have major impacts on the integrity, safety, and effectiveness of human subjects research in neurology.

Exception From Informed Consent: How IRB Reviewers Assess Community Consultation and Public Disclosure

Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) regulations detail specific circumstances in which Institutional Review Boards (IRB) can approve studies where obtaining informed consent is not possible prior to subject enrollment. To better understand how IRB members evaluate community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD) processes and results, semi-structured interviews of EFIC-experienced IRB members were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis. Interviews with 11 IRB members revealed similar approaches to reviewing EFIC studies. Most use summaries of CC activities to determine community members' attitudes; none reported using specific criteria nor recalled any CC reviews that resulted in modifications to or denials of EFIC studies. Most interviewees thought metrics based on Community VOICES's domains (feasibility, participant selection, quality of communication, community perceptions, investigator/IRB perceptions) would be helpful. IRB members had similar experiences and concerns about reviewing EFIC studies. Development of metrics to assess CC processes may be useful to IRBs reviewing EFIC studies.

Evaluating the Quality of Research Ethics Review and Oversight: A Systematic Analysis of Quality Assessment Instruments

BACKGROUND

Research ethics review committees (RERCs) and Human Research Protection Programs (HRPPs) are responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of research participants while avoiding unnecessary inhibition of valuable research. Evaluating RERC/HRPP quality is vital to determining whether they are achieving these goals effectively and efficiently, as well as what adjustments might be necessary. Various tools, standards, and accreditation mechanisms have been developed in the United States and internationally to measure and promote RERC/HRPP quality.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed 10 quality assessment instruments, examining their overall approaches, factors considered relevant to quality, how they compare to each other, and what they leave out. For each tool, we counted the number of times each of 34 topics (divided into structure, process, and outcome categories) was mentioned. We generated lists of which topics are most and least mentioned for each tool, which are most prevalent across tools, and which are left unmentioned. We also conducted content analysis for the 10 most common topics.

RESULTS

We found wide variability between instruments, common emphasis on process and structure with little attention to participant outcomes, and failure to identify clear priorities for assessment. The most frequently mentioned topics are Review Type, IRB Member Expertise, Training and Educational Resources, Protocol Maintenance, Record Keeping, and Mission, Approach, and Culture. Participant Outcomes is unmentioned in 8 tools; the remaining 2 tools include assessments based on adverse events, failures of informed consent, and consideration of participant experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis confirms that RERC/HRPP quality assessment instruments largely rely on surrogate measures of participant protection. To prioritize between these measures and preserve limited resources for evaluating the most important criteria, we recommend that instruments focus on elements relevant to participant outcomes, robust board deliberation, and procedures most likely to address participant risks. Validation of these approaches remains an essential next step.

Responsible Translational Pathways for Germline Gene Editing?

Purpose of Review

Continued development of gene editing techniques has raised the real possibility of clinical application of germline gene editing. These results, as well as reports of an unethical experiment which resulted in the birth of at least two children from edited embryos in 2018, have highlighted the urgency and importance of ethical issues about translational pathways for editing of human germline cells. Charting responsible translational pathways for germline gene editing requires tackling some significant and complex ethical issues.

Recent Findings

A literature on development of clinical applications of germline gene editing is emerging, and several key ethical issues are coming into focus as major challenges for responsible translational pathways.

Summary

Potential clinical utility, clinical justification, and human subjects research for germline gene editing raise outstanding ethical questions. Work on these questions will help provide guidance to researchers and clinicians and direct translational projects toward justifiable applications.

Reported Participation Benefits in International HIV Prevention Research with People Who Inject Drugs

Given ethical concerns about research involving people who inject drugs and those affected by HIV, identifying potential participation benefits is important. We evaluated participant-reported benefits in a trial conducted in Indonesia, Ukraine, and Vietnam that assessed an intervention combining psychosocial counseling and referral for antiretroviral therapy and substance use treatment for HIV-infected people who use drugs. Reported benefits were aggregated into three groups: clinical (antiretroviral therapy, reduced cravings, reduced drug use, lab testing, medical referral, mental health, physical health), social (employment, financial, relationships, reduced stigma), and general (gained knowledge, life improvement). Overall, 438 index participants (90.5%) and 642 injection partners (83.1%) reported at least one benefit. Significantly more index participants who received the study intervention reported at least one benefit versus those who received the standard of care. Clinical trial participation can provide broad direct and indirect benefits for stigmatized populations, which has implications for assessing the ethical appropriateness of studies with such populations.

Misrepresenting "Usual Care" in Research: An Ethical and Scientific Error

Comparative effectiveness studies, referred to here as "usual-care" trials, seek to compare current medical practices for the same medical condition. Such studies are presumed to be safe and involve only minimal risks. However, that presumption may be flawed if the trial design contains "unusual" care, resulting in potential risks to subjects and inaccurately informed consent. Three case studies described here did not rely on clinical evidence to ascertain contemporaneous practice. As a result, the investigators drew inaccurate conclusions, misinformed research participants, and subjects' safety was compromised. Before approving usual-care protocols, IRBs and scientific review committees should evaluate the quality and completeness of information documenting usual-care practices. Guidance from governmental oversight agencies regarding evidence-based documentation of current clinical practice could prevent similar occurrences in future usual-care trials. Accurate information is necessary to ensure that trials comply with government regulations that require minimizing research risks to subjects and accurate informed consent documents.

"Paid to Endure": Paid Research Participation, Passivity, and the Goods of Work

A growing literature documents the existence of individuals who make a living by participating in phase I clinical trials for money. Several scholars have noted that the concerns about risks, consent, and exploitation raised by this phenomenon apply to many (other) jobs, too, and therefore proposed improving subject protections by regulating phase I trial participation as work. This article contributes to the debate over this proposal by exploring a largely neglected worry. Unlike most (other) workers, subjects are not paid to produce or achieve anything but to have things done to them. I argue that this passivity is problematic for reasons of distributive justice. Specifically, it fails to enable subjects to realize what Gheaus and Herzog call "the goods of work"-a failure not offset by adequate opportunities to realize these goods outside of the research context. I also consider whether granting subjects worker-type protections would accommodate this concern.

Responsible Conduct of Human Subjects Research in Islamic Communities

In order to increase understanding of the ethical implications of biomedical, behavioral and clinical research, the Fogarty International Center, part of the United States National Institutes of Health, established an International Research Ethics Education and Curriculum Development Award (R25) to support programs in low- and middle-income countries. To develop research ethics expertise in Jordan, the University of California San Diego fellowship program in collaboration with Jordan University of Science and Technology provides courses that enable participants to develop skills in varied research ethics topics, including research with human subjects. The program provides a master's level curriculum, including practicum experiences. In this article we describe a practicum project to modify an existing introduction to human subjects research for a US audience to be linguistically and culturally appropriate to Arabic-speaking-Islamic communities. We also highlight key differences that guided the conversion of an English version to one that is in Arabic. And finally, as Institutional Review Boards follow the ethical principles of the Belmont Report in evaluating and approving biomedical and behavioral human subjects research proposals, we provide observations on the conformity of the three ethical principles of the Belmont Report with Islam.

Who is informed and who uninformed? Addressing the legal barriers to progress in dementia research and care

Conduct of research is an essential tool for the evaluation and improvement of health services. In Israel, research on persons with dementia is very limited, with the largest portion of such research involving a few surveys and examining risk factors for dementia. Very few studies describe clinical research, and those that do either include participants at early stages of dementia, or rely completely on caregivers’ perceptions and experiences, often without reference to any individual with dementia. This dearth of research is due, to a substantial extent, to Ministry of Health regulations which do not permit family proxy consent for research involving persons with dementia. Alternative models for regulation of consent for research exist in other countries, including the U.S., and these allow for proxy consent under certain conditions. This paper presents such a model and its underlying ethical principles. It contends that the current state of affairs, which stands in the way of clinical research concerning persons with advanced dementia, is contrary to the interests of such persons, their caregivers, and Israeli society. Therefore, this paper calls for a change in the present regulations and/or law in the cause of advancing knowledge and improving care for persons with dementia.

An Exploration of the Protective Effects of Investigators' Ethical Awareness upon Subjects of Drug Clinical Trials in China

Up till now, China has not enacted any legal mechanisms governing certification or supervision for ethics committees. This article analyses deficiencies in the protection of subjects in clinical drug trials under China's current laws and regulations; it emphasizes that investigators, as practitioners who have direct contact with subjects, play significant roles in protecting and safeguarding subjects' rights and interests. The paper compares the status quo in China in this area to that of other countries and discusses ways China might enhance the protection of rights and interests of trial subjects, such as enhancing the ethical awareness of investigators through training, improving laws and regulations, and strengthening the communication between investigators and ethics committees.

Responsible surgical innovation and research in maternal-fetal surgery

The field of maternal-fetal intervention is rapidly evolving with new technologies and innovations. This raises complex ethical and medico-legal challenges related to what constitutes innovative treatment versus human experimentation, with or without the umbrella of "medical research." There exists a gray zone between these black and white classifications, but there are also clear guidelines that should be responsibly negotiated when making the essential transition between an innovative treatment and a validated therapy. This review attempts to define some of the current and future ethical challenges in maternal-fetal research, and to offer constructive insight into how they might be addressed.

Justification and authority in institutional review board decision letters

While ethnographic study has described the discussions that occur during human subjects research ethics review, investigators have minimal access to the interactions of ethics oversight committees. They instead receive letters stipulating changes to their proposed studies. Ethics committee letters are central to the practice of research ethics: they change the nature of research, alter the knowledge it produces, and in doing so construct what ethical research is and how it is pursued. However, these letters have rarely been objects of analysis. Accordingly, we conducted a qualitative analysis of letters written by American institutional review boards (IRBs) overseeing biomedical and health behavioral research. We sought to clarify how IRBs exercise their authority by assessing the frequency with which they provided reasons for their stipulations as well as the nature of these reasons. We found that IRBs frequently do not justify their stipulations; rather, they often leave ethical or regulatory concerns implicit or frame their comments as boilerplate language replacements, procedural instructions, or demands for missing information. When they do provide justifications, their rationales exhibit substantial variability in explicitness and clarity. These rhetorical tendencies indicate that the authority of IRBs is grounded primarily in their role as bureaucratic gatekeepers. We conclude by suggesting that greater attention to justification could help shift the basis of the IRB-researcher relationship from compliance to mutual accountability.

Geospatial cryptography: enabling researchers to access private, spatially referenced, human subjects data for cancer control and prevention

As the volume, accuracy and precision of digital geographic information have increased, concerns regarding individual privacy and confidentiality have come to the forefront. Not only do these challenge a basic tenet underlying the advancement of science by posing substantial obstacles to the sharing of data to validate research results, but they are obstacles to conducting certain research projects in the first place. Geospatial cryptography involves the specification, design, implementation and application of cryptographic techniques to address privacy, confidentiality and security concerns for geographically referenced data. This article defines geospatial cryptography and demonstrates its application in cancer control and surveillance. Four use cases are considered: (1) national-level de-duplication among state or province-based cancer registries; (2) sharing of confidential data across cancer registries to support case aggregation across administrative geographies; (3) secure data linkage; and (4) cancer cluster investigation and surveillance. A secure multi-party system for geospatial cryptography is developed. Solutions under geospatial cryptography are presented and computation time is calculated. As services provided by cancer registries to the research community, de-duplication, case aggregation across administrative geographies and secure data linkage are often time-consuming and in some instances precluded by confidentiality and security concerns. Geospatial cryptography provides secure solutions that hold significant promise for addressing these concerns and for accelerating the pace of research with human subjects data residing in our nation's cancer registries. Pursuit of the research directions posed herein conceivably would lead to a geospatially encrypted geographic information system (GEGIS) designed specifically to promote the sharing and spatial analysis of confidential data. Geospatial cryptography holds substantial promise for accelerating the pace of research with spatially referenced human subjects data.

A qualitative study of participants' views on re-consent in a longitudinal biobank

Background

Biomedical research increasingly relies on long-term studies involving use and re-use of biological samples and data stored in large repositories or “biobanks” over lengthy periods, often raising questions about whether and when a re-consenting process should be activated. We sought to investigate the views on re-consent of participants in a longitudinal biobank.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with 24 people who were participating in a longitudinal biobank. Their views were elicited using a semi-structured interview schedule and scenarios based on a hypothetical biobank. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method.

Results

What participants identified as requiring new consent was not a straightforward matter predictable by algorithms about the scope of the consent, but instead was contingent. They assessed whether proposed new research implied a fundamental alteration in the underlying character of the biobank and whether specific projects were within the scope of the original consent. What mattered most to them was that the cooperative bargain into which they had entered was maintained in good faith. They saw re-consent as one important safeguard in this bargain. In determining what required re-consent, they deployed two logics. First, they used a logic of boundaries, where they sought to detect any possible rupture with their existing framework of cooperation. Second, they used a logic of risk, where they assessed proposed research for any potential threats for them personally or the research endeavour. When they judged that a need for re-consent had been activated, participants saw the process as way of re-actualising and renewing the cooperative bargain.

Conclusions

Participants’ perceptions of research as a process of mutual co-operation between volunteer and researcher were fundamental to their views on consent. Consenting arrangements for biobanks should respect the cooperative values that are important to participants, recognise the two logics used by research volunteers, and avoid rigidity. Agility may be favoured by tiered consent combined with strong oversight mechanisms; this approach requires evaluation.