The current situation of health research and ethics in Sudan

At the beginning of the twentieth century, health research in the Sudan developed primarily as a function of the colonial British administration. Ethical issues in the medical profession in the Sudan are governed by the Sudan Medical Council. To address these issues, the Sudan Medical Council issued Medico-legal and Ethical Guidelines in 1967. This important document has focused principally on ethical issues arising in clinical medicine. Throughout the history of health research in Sudan it is very difficult to find any reference to research ethics. Nevertheless, there have been a few attempts to articulate ethics in health research. In 1979, Sudan witnessed the establishment of the first ethical review committee, which was established by the initiative of a group of doctors and scientists from the national health research laboratory. This committee got neither political nor institutional recognition. Therefore, it was not developed and came to an end shortly after its inception. Yet, in 2000 the FMOH established an ethical review committee (ERC). The functions of this committee were to review proposals of health research to be carried out in the country for ethical issues irrespective to the funding agents. Unfortunately, the committee devoted all the jobs in reviewing only externally-sponsored health research and research carried out by expatriate researchers or international organisations.     

Addressing the challenge for expedient ethical review of research in disasters and disease outbreaks

Guideline 20 of the updated International Ethics Guidelines for Health‐related Research Involving Humans (2016) by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) provides guidance on research in disasters and disease outbreaks against the background of the need to generate knowledge quickly, overcome practical impediments to implementing such research, and the need to maintain public trust. The guideline recommends that research ethics committees could pre‐screen study protocols to expedite ethical reviews in a situation of crisis, that pre‐arrangements be made regarding data sharing and biomedical sample sharing, and that sponsors and research ethics committees seek to minimize risk to researchers conducting research during a disaster. This paper critiques these recommendations against the background of the findings of a survey of public health officials and chairs of research ethics committees in the Caribbean during 2016, which sought to determine the best template for the expeditious ethical review of research proposals in emergency and epidemic situations in the Caribbean, and whose findings can serve as a model for other low‐ and middle‐income countries.     

Informed Consent in Health Research: Challenges and Barriers in Low‐and Middle‐Income Countries with Specific Reference to Nepal

Obtaining ‘informed consent’ from every individual participant involved in health research is a mandatory ethical practice. Informed consent is a process whereby potential participants are genuinely informed about their role, risk and rights before they are enrolled in the study. Thus, ethics committees in most countries require ‘informed consent form’ as part of an ethics application which is reviewed before granting research ethics approval. Despite a significant increase in health research activity in low‐and middle‐income countries (LMICs) in recent years, only limited work has been done to address ethical concerns. Most ethics committees in LMICs lack the authority and/or the capacity to monitor research in the field. This is important since not all research, particularly in LMICs region, complies with ethical principles, sometimes this is inadvertently or due to a lack of awareness of their importance in assuring proper research governance. With several examples from Nepal, this paper reflects on the steps required to obtain informed consents and highlights some of the major challenges and barriers to seeking informed consent from research participants. At the end of this paper, we also offer some recommendations around how can we can promote and implement optimal informed consent taking process. We believe that paper is useful for researchers and members of ethical review boards in highlighting key issues around informed consent.     

CAPACITY BUILDING OF ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEES ACROSS AFRICA BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY

A needs assessment survey of ethics review committees (ERCs) across Africa was conducted in order to establish their major needs and areas of weaknesses in terms of ethical review capacity. The response rate was 84% (31 of 37 targeted committees), and committees surveyed were located in 18 African countries. The majority of the responding committees (61%) have been in existence between 5 and 10 years; approximately 74% of the respondents were institutional committees, with the remainder being either national (6/31) or regional (2/31).
In terms of the ethical review process, nine of the 31 committees that responded did not have standard operating procedures (SOPs), and seven of the 22 that did have SOPs had never revised them after their initial development (an average period of three years). Of the 31 committees, 10 operated without any ethical guidelines. Many of the committees (13/30) met once per month, and the number of proposals reviewed annually varied, ranging from five to over 100. All respondents relied on paper-based data management and archiving systems.
Overall, the survey identified the major constraints on ERCs as lack of office equipment, outdated or lack of SOPs, lack of electronic data management systems, inadequate resources, lack of or insufficient expertise on the committees, and poor recognition of the importance of the role of the committees. Consequently, the authors are addressing the identified needs and weaknesses through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-funded capacity building project. The impact of the intervention project will be assessed during and at the end of the four-year longitudinal project.     

Improving the Quality of Host Country Ethical Oversight of International Research: The Use of a Collaborative ‘Pre‐Review’ Mechanism for a Study of Fexinidazole for Human African Trypanosomiasis

Developing countries face numerous barriers to conducting effective and efficient ethics reviews of international collaborative research. In addition to potentially overlooking important scientific and ethical considerations, inadequate or insufficiently trained ethics committees may insist on unwarranted changes to protocols that can impair a study's scientific or ethical validity. Moreover, poorly functioning review systems can impose substantial delays on the commencement of research, which needlessly undermine the development of new interventions for urgent medical needs. In response to these concerns, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi), an independent nonprofit organization founded by a coalition of public sector and international organizations, developed a mechanism to facilitate more effective and efficient host country ethics review for a study of the use of fexinidazole for the treatment of late stage African Trypanosomiasis (HAT). The project involved the implementation of a novel ‘pre‐review’ process of ethical oversight, conducted by an ad hoc committee of ethics committee representatives from African and European countries, in collaboration with internationally recognized scientific experts. This article examines the process and outcomes of this collaborative process.     

医学研究伦理学的发展现状与前景

创新技术的开展和转化医学的注重给医学的发展注入了新的活力,但同时,也带来了一系列社会伦理问题和法律问题。生命医学伦理学的兴起和发展催生了医学研究伦理学分支学科形成,目的在于推进解决涉及人体的医学研究的伦理问题。当前,面临的最突出的伦理问题在于,对医学研究合法性、先进性及伦理性的把握,对医学研究伦理审查必要性的认知,对医学研究方案设计与伦理道德的匹配,对医学研究知情同意的告知,对医学研究风险与受益的平衡。逐步与国际接轨,加强伦理委员会制度建设;提高伦理审查能力建设,形成高水平的伦理审查队伍;学术组织和团体共同努力,推进医学研究伦理学的发展,这将助推医学研究伦理学的发展。     

Challenges faced by research ethics committees in El Salvador: results from a focus group study

Objective:  To identify perceived barriers to capacity building for local research ethics oversight in El Salvador, and to set an agenda for international collaborative capacity building.
Methods:  Focus groups were formed in El Salvador which included 17 local clinical investigators and members of newly formed research ethics committees. Information about the proposed research was presented to participants during an international bioethics colloquium sponsored and organized by the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in collaboration with the National Ethics Committee of El Salvador and the University of El Salvador. Interviews with the focus group participants were qualitatively analyzed.
Results:  Participants expressed the need to tailor the informed consent process and documentation to the local culture; for example, allowing family members to participate in decision-making, and employing shorter consent forms. Participants indicated that economic barriers often impede efforts in local capacity building. Participants valued international collaboration for mutual capacity building in research ethics oversight.
Conclusions:  Research ethics committees in El Salvador possess a basic knowledge of locally relevant ethical principles, though they need more training to optimize the application of bioethical principles and models to their particular contexts. Challenges increase the value of collaborative exchanges with ethics committee members in the United States. Further research on facilitating communication between host country and sponsor country ethics committees can maximize local research ethics expertise, and thus raise the standard of protecting human participants involved in international research.     

Bystanders and ethical review of research: Proceed with caution

Scientists seeking to conduct research with human subjects must first submit their proposals to research ethics committees (Institutional Review Boards [IRBs], in the United States). Some of these studies pose risks to “bystanders,” i.e., people who may be affected by the research but who are not enrolled as study subjects. Should IRBs expand their scope to include oversight over possible harms to bystanders as well as research subjects? This paper presents arguments against this step. Prior review of research with human subjects, despite its evident burden on the research enterprise, is a necessary caution, because the tension between the objectives of humane treatment of research subjects and sound scientific design and procedure has in the past led to serious abuses. This rationale is inapplicable in the case of bystanders. Moreover, in view of the many and varied effects of both research practices and scientific advances on the broader public over time, those who may be considered to be “bystanders” may potentially expand without limit; requiring IRBs to anticipate these distant and long-term effects as part of prior ethical review could greatly increase its burden and its deterrent effect on research. While conducting research without concern for serious potential harm to bystanders may be irresponsible and unethical, expanding the scope of prior review by IRBs to include risks to bystanders is not required by the principles governing human subjects research, and the costs and burdens of this expansion may outweigh any expected gains.     

The reporting of IRB review in journal articles presenting HIV research conducted in the developing world

Objectives: We investigated how often journal articles reporting on human HIV research in four developing world countries mention any institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees (RECs), and what factors are involved. Methods: We examined all such articles published in 2007 from India, Nigeria, Thailand and Uganda, and coded these for several ethical and other characteristics. Results: Of 221 articles meeting inclusion criteria, 32.1% did not mention IRB approval. Mention of IRB approval was associated with: biomedical (versus psychosocial) research (P = 0.001), more sponsor‐country authors (P = 0.003), sponsor‐country corresponding author (P = 0.047), mention of funding (P < 0.001), particular host‐country involved (P = 0.002), journals having sponsor‐country editors (P < 0.001), and journal stated compliance with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines (P = 0.003). Logistic regression identified 3 significant factors: mention of funding, journal having sponsor‐country editors and research being biomedical. Conclusions: One‐third of articles still do not mention IRB approval. Mention varied by country, and was associated with biomedical research, and more sponsor country involvement. Recently, some journals have required mention of IRB approval, but allow authors to do so in cover letters to editors, not in the article itself. Instead, these data suggest, journals should require that articles document adherence to ethical standards.     

The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study

ObjectiveTo assess the function of the new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees and to highlight areas where improvement is still needed.DesignProspectively collected data from a multicentre study was examined with respect to the ethics review process. Administrative, financial, and time elements of the review process were audited.SettingA single multicentre research ethics committee and 125 local ethics committees from six regions of England.ResultsOnly 40% of local ethics committees considered our study in the manner specified in the 1998 directive. Less than a third of committees replied within the 21 day period stipulated, although committees acting by executive subcommittee replied more quickly than those not acting by executive subcommittee. There was a tendency for executive subcommittees to approve studies in a shorter time. Local ethics committees asked for a large number of non-local changes to the application. The financial cost of applying to multiple ethics committees remains high, mainly because multiple copies of research applications are being requested.ConclusionsThe new system of approval by multicentre research ethics committee for multicentre studies was introduced to reduce administrative costs, speed up the process of reviews by multiple research ethics committees, and standardise the conclusions of the local research ethics committees. Since its introduction an improvement has been seen, but the system is not yet universally functioning as intended. Ethics review still remains a hindrance to the financial resources and commencement of national studies. We strongly support the structure of review by multicentre research ethics committees but suggest that the system has yet to achieve its aims.     

A Brief History of Biomedical Research Ethics in Iran: Conflict of Paradigms

During the past two decades, Iran has experienced a noteworthy growth in its biomedical research sector. At the same time, ethical concerns and debates resulting from this burgeoning enterprise has led to increasing attention paid to biomedical ethics. In Iran, Biomedical research ethics and research oversight passed through major periods during the past decades, separated by a paradigm shift. Period 1, starting from the early 1970s, is characterized by research paternalism and complete reliance on researchers as virtuous and caring physicians. This approach was in concordance with the paternalistic clinical practice of physicians outside of research settings during the same period. Period 2, starting from the late 1990s, was partly due to revealing of ethical flaws that occurred in biomedical research in Iran. The regulatory and funding bodies concluded that it was not sufficient to rely solely on the personal and professional virtues of researchers to safeguard human subjects' rights and welfare. The necessity for independent oversight, emphasized by international declarations, became obvious and undeniable. This paradigm shift led to the establishment of research ethics committees throughout the country, the establishment of academic research centers focusing on medical ethics (MEHR) and the compilation of the first set of national ethical guidelines on biomedical research–one of the first and most important projects conducted by and in the MEHR. Although not yet arrived, ‘period 3’ is on its way. It is predictable from the obvious trends toward performance of high‐quality clinical research and the appearance of a highly educated new generation, especially among women.     

What is wrong with ethics review,the impact on teaching anthropology,and how to fix it: results of an empirical study

There is no empirical evidence that ethics review protects anthropologists’ research participants, but there is ample evidence that it is stifling research agendas and reshaping how we teach anthropological research methods, entrenching a positivist, clinical model of what constitutes research. This paper examines the impact of ethics review on student research in Australia, based on interviews conducted at 14 Australian universities. The data clearly show that the risks posed by student research are minor, and vastly overestimated by ethics committees. To avoid problems with ethics committees, we shepherd students into undertaking low‐risk, and consequently low‐impact, research. Many departments are abandoning research‐led teaching altogether because of the obstacle of ethics review. One solution would be to locate ethics discussions in disciplines and departments, radically restructuring the encounter to reconceptualise it as collegial debate about ethics dilemmas rather than ‘ethics review’.     

Guidelines for Community-based Ethics Review of Children’s Science Fair Projects

Low-level community based ethics committees staffed by teachers, parents and community representatives can readily review children’s science fair projects subject to the revision of two core assumptions currently governing children’s Science Fairs. The first part of the paper recasts the New Zealand Royal Society guidelines from its primary emphasis on risk to a new assumption, without benefit there can be no risk. Equally, this revision gives more prominence to the participant information sheet, allowing it to act as a quasi application form which provides ethical transparency between student researchers, participants and a community based ethics committee. A second core assumption, more accurately labeled a cult of originality, produces a random, open-ended array of student topics taking ethics review beyond the confidence level of most community based ethics review committees. This paper reins in Science Fair coordinators recommending they make community level ethics review more manageable by providing a list of preapproved topics for those students wanting to conduct research involving human participants. These revised assumptions create a workable division of labour. Teachers’ preapproved topics involving human participants are more likely to be low risk, permitting community level ethics review to focus primarily on two aspects of the minimization of harm: first, for all participants, especially those with diminished autonomy, and second, for the child researchers themselves, as some participants may be unknown to the student. These revised assumptions make science and ethics more accessible to public education thus demonstrating how Science Fairs can lead students and the community into better understanding the role and function that ethics has in all scientific research human participants. Martin Tolich chaired New Zealand’s National Health Ethics committee, the multi-region ethics committee.     

GENDER AND ETHICS COMMITTEES: WHERE’S THE ‘DIFFERENT VOICE’?

Prominent international and national ethics commissions such as the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee rarely achieve anything remotely resembling gender equality, although local research and clinical ethics committees are somewhat more egalitarian. Under‐representation of women is particularly troubling when the subject matter of modern bioethics so disproportionately concerns women’s bodies, and when such committees claim to derive ‘universal’ standards. Are women missing from many ethics committees because of relatively straightforward, if discriminatory, demographic factors? Or are the methods of analysis and styles of ethics to which these bodies are committed somehow ‘anti‐female’? It has been argued, for example, that there is a ‘different voice’ in ethical reasoning, not confined to women but more representative of female experience. Similarly, some feminist writers, such as Evelyn Fox Keller and Donna Haraway, have asked difficult epistemological questions about the dominant ‘masculine paradigm’ in science. Perhaps the dominant paradigm in ethics committee deliberation is similarly gendered? This article provides a preliminary survey of women’s representation on ethics committees in eastern and western Europe, a critical analysis of the supposed ‘masculinism’ of the principlist approach, and a case example in which a ‘different voice’ did indeed make a difference.     

Publication: an ethical imperative.

Publication of medical research is both a monitor of the researcher''s ethics and an audit of the local or regional ethics committee that approved it. Selectivity of publication or of the intention to publish lessens this audit. Opinions differ about what is ethically allowable in clinical and benchtop medical research. Ethical permission and ethical monitoring of medical research are subject to a hierarchy of pyramidal controls, starting in hospital and ending with the local, institutional, or regional ethics committee. Currently, such committees function with widely varying degrees of efficiency and quality of output, and with differing viewpoints on many ethical issues. Without an a priori insistence by institutional ethics committees that there be an intention to publish all medical research involving human subjects, ethics committees cannot routinely be subject to the scrutiny or audit which they themselves demand of researchers.     

Unequal protection for patient rights: The divide between university and health ethics committees

Despite recommendations from the Cartwright Report ethical review by health ethics committees has continued in New Zealand without health practitioners ever having to acknowledge their dual roles as health practitioners researching their own patients. On the other hand, universities explicitly identify doctor/research-patient relations as potentially raising conflict of role issues. This stems from the acknowledgement within the university sector itself that lecturer/research-student relations are fraught with such conflicts. Although similar unequal relationships are seen to exist between health resarchers and their patients, the patient/subjects are not afforded the levels of protection that are afforded student/subjects. In this paper we argue that the difference between universities and health research is a result of the failure of the Operational Standard Code for Ethics Committees to explicitly acknowledge the vulnerability of the patient and conflict of interests in the dual roles of health practitioner/researcher. We end the paper recommending the Ministry of Health consider the rewriting of the Operational Standard Code for Ethics Committees, in particular in the rewriting of section 26 of the Operational Standard Code for Ethics Committees. We also identify the value of comparative ethical review and suggest the New Zealand's Health Research Council's trilateral relationship with Australia's NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) and Canada's CIHR (Canadian Institute of Health Research) as a useful starting point for such a process.     

THE ETHICS OF SHAM SURGERY IN PARKINSON'S DISEASE: BACK TO THE FUTURE?

Despite intense academic debate in the recent past over the use of ‘sham surgery’ control groups in research, there has been a recent resurgence in their use in the field of neurodegenerative disease. Yet the primacy of ethical arguments in favour of sham surgery controls is not yet established. Preliminary empirical research shows an asymmetry between the views of neurosurgical researchers and patients on the subject, while different ethical guidelines and regulations support conflicting interpretations. Research ethics committees faced with a proposal involving sham surgery should be aware of its ethical complexities. An overview of recent and current placebo‐controlled surgical trials in the field of Parkinson's Disease is provided here, followed by an analysis of the key ethical issues which such trials raise.     

Barriers and challenges in clinical ethics consultations: the experiences of nine clinical ethics committees

Clinical ethics committees have recently been established in nearly all Norwegian hospital trusts. One important task for these committees is clinical ethics consultations. This qualitative study explores significant barriers confronting the ethics committees in providing such consultation services. The interviews with the committees indicate that there is a substantial need for clinical ethics support services and, in general, the committee members expressed a great deal of enthusiasm for the committee work. They also reported, however, that tendencies to evade moral disagreement, conflict, and 'outsiders' are common in the hospitals. Sometimes even the committees comply with some of these tendencies. The committees agree that there is a need to improve their routines and procedures, clarify the committees' profile and field of responsibility, to make the committees well-known, to secure adequate operating conditions, and to develop organizational integration and support. Various strategies to meet these challenges on a local, regional or national level are also explored in this paper.     

Ethical review issues in collaborative research between us and low-middle income country partners: a case example

The current ethical structure for collaborative international health research stems largely from developed countries' standards of proper ethical practices. The result is that ethical committees in developing countries are required to adhere to standards that might impose practices that conflict with local culture and unintended interpretations of ethics, treatments, and research. This paper presents a case example of a joint international research project that successfully established inclusive ethical review processes as well as other groundwork and components necessary for the conduct of human behavior research and research capacity building in the host country.