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.     

Review by a local medical research ethics committee of the conduct of approved research projects,by examination of patients' case notes,consent forms,and research records and by interview.

OBJECTIVE: To monitor the conduct of medical research projects that have already been approved by the local medical research ethics committee. DESIGN: Follow up study of ethically approved studies (randomly selected from all the studies approved in the previous year) by examination of patients'' case notes, consent forms, and research records and by interview of the researchers at their workplace. SETTING: Tayside, Scotland (mixed rural and urban population). SUBJECTS: 30 research projects approved by Tayside local medical research ethics committee. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to the agreed protocol, particularly for recruitment (obtaining and recording informed consent) and for specific requirements of the ethics committee, including notification of changes to the protocol and of adverse events. RESULTS: In one project only oral consent had been obtained, and in a quarter of the studies one or more consent forms were incorrectly completed. Inadequate filing of case notes in five studies and of consent forms in six made them unavailable for scrutiny. Adverse events were reported, but there was a general failure to report the abandoning or non-starting of projects in two studies the investigators failed to notify a change in the responsible researcher. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring of medical research by local medical research ethics committees promotes and preserves ethical standards, protects subjects and researchers, discourages fraud, and has the support of investigators. We recommend that 10% of projects should undergo on-site review, with all others monitored by questionnaire. This would require about six person hours of time and a salary bill of 120 pounds per study monitored.     

Human Research Ethics Committees: Examining their Roles and Practices

considerable time and resources are invested in the ethics review process. We present qualitative data on how human research ethics committee members and health researchers perceive the role and function of the committee. The findings are based on interviews with 34 Australian ethics committee members and 54 health researchers. Although all participants agreed that the primary role of the ethics committee was to protect participants, there was disagreement regarding the additional roles undertaken by committees. Of particular concern were the perceptions from some ethics committee members and researchers that ethics committees were working to protect the institution's interests, as well as being overprotective toward research participants. This has the potential to lead to poor relations and mistrust between ethics committees and researchers.     

生命伦理学委员会

生命伦理学委员会是从伦理学角度审查人体试验研究,保护受试者权益的决策咨询组织。该委员会一般由来自法学、伦理学、医学、药学等领域的专家学者组成,其审查遵循的重要依据是世界医学会制订的《赫尔基辛宣言》。近年来,伦理委员会快速发展,但各伦理委员会审查质量参差不齐。因此,相关部门尚需加强对伦理委员会成员的培训,并加强对伦理委员会的监管,方能促进我国伦理委员会的良性发展。     

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.     

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.     

Requirements for ethics committee review for studies submitted to Implementation Science

The requirement for ethics review of studies submitted to Implementation Science has been unclear. Therefore, in this editorial, we set out our requirements for ethics committee review of experimental and non-experimental studies. For any study that meets the criteria of human subject research (which includes research on healthcare providers), irrespective of study design, we will require proof of either satisfactory ethics committee review or of the granting of an official exemption or waiver.     

Assessment of the ethical review process in Sudan

The ethical review process is an important component of contemporary health research worldwide. Sudan started an ethical review process rather late in comparison with other countries. In this study, we evaluate the structure and functions of existing ethics review committees. We also explore the knowledge and attitudes of Sudanese researchers toward the ethical review process and their experience with existing ethics review committees. There are four ethics review committees in the country; these committees have no institutional regulations to govern their functions. Furthermore, Sudan also lacks national guidelines. Ethical reviews are carried out primarily for studies seeking international funding and are almost always governed by the funding agencies' requirements. Nearly half of respondents (46.3%) knew about the existence of research ethics committees in Sudan. Researchers reported a variety of experiences with the ethical review process; most of them were unable to define 'ethics committee'.     

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.     

Should society allow research ethics boards to be run as for-profit enterprises?

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE: An important mechanism for protecting human research participants is the prior approval of a clinical study by a research ethics board, known in the United States as an institutional review board (IRB). Traditionally, IRBs have been run by volunteer committees of scientists and clinicians working in the academic medical centers where the studies they review are being carried out. However, for-profit organizations are increasingly being hired to conduct ethics reviews. Proponents of for-profit IRBs argue that these IRBs are just as capable as academic IRBs at providing high-quality ethics reviews. Critics argue that for-profit IRBs have a conflict of interest because they generate their income from clients who have a direct financial interest in obtaining approval.     

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.     

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.     

Ethics committee recommendations for laboratory animals in private research in France

Complementary to existing legislation, non-public research companies in France have been working together voluntarily within an organization known as Grice (Interprofessional Working Group on Ethics Committees for Laboratory Animals/Groupe de Réflexion Interprofessionnel sur les Comites d'Ethique appliquée à l'animal de laboratoire) with the objective of creating institutional ethics committees in an effort to promote animal welfare and good scientific procedures. Each company's commitment to the creation of these committees has been expressed by signing the Charter. Each ethics committee is composed of at least three members, including one who is not a scientist; a veterinarian is highly desirable. The committee examines all procedures and protocols involving animals and hands down a favourable or unfavourable opinion, or requests improvements, especially concerning animal well-being. Consensual approval of the protocol is an essential requirement before the purchase or allocation of animals. The committee examines every aspect of laboratory animal housing and care, and inspects all temporary or permanent animal housing facilities. Grice will continue its efforts in relation with public research organizations as well as with groups and in other countries whose objectives are in line with its own.     

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.     

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’.     

Pharmaceutical trials in general practice: the first 100 protocols. An audit by the clinical research ethics committee of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcome of 100 general practice based, multicentre research projects submitted to the ethics committee of the Royal College of General Practitioners by pharmaceutical companies or their agents between 1984 and 1989. DESIGN: Analysis of consecutive submitted protocols for stated objectives, study design, and outcomes; detailed review of committee minutes and correspondence in relation to amendment and approval; assessment of final reports submitted at conclusion of studies. SUBJECTS: 82 finally approved protocols, embracing 34,523 proposed trial subjects and 1195 proposed general practice investigators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success at enrolling subjects and investigators; commencement and completion data; validity of final report''s assessment of efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability; and method of use and dissemination of findings. RESULTS: 18 studies were not approved and 45 had to be amended. Randomised controlled trials comprised 46 of the original submissions. Remuneration considerations, inadequate information or consent sheets, pregnancy safety, the need to discontinue existing therapy, and suboptimal scientific content were major reasons for rejecting studies or asking for amendments. Of the 82 approved studies 8 were not started. Shortfalls of investigators (of 39%) and trial subjects (of 37%) and an overall 23% withdrawal rate were responsible for a significant incidence of inconclusive results. Within the six year follow up interval, only 19 of the studies had been formally published. CONCLUSIONS: This audit identified substantial ethical concerns in the process of approving multicentre general practice pharmaceutical research.     

European Ethical Review Committee: the experience of an international ethics committee reviewing protocols for drug trials.

An international ethics review committee, founded seven years ago, has several unusual features: it selects its own members, who are independent of the drug industry; it includes members with no medical or paramedical background, such as lay people and lawyers; and it reviews protocols together with the study''s sponsor. Membership of 31 from nine European countries enables frequent meetings and there is a full meeting of the committee every year to review progress and consider policy. Of the first 294 protocols for phase I, II, or III trials reviewed, 37 were admitted outright, 243 were amended (usually during the discussion of the protocol), and 14 were rejected. It is suggested that, to overcome the problem of ethics review in smaller institutions, regional health authorities in Britain might consider establishing similar committees.     

Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France: retrospective cohort study

Objectives To describe the fate of protocols approved by the French research ethics committees, a national system created by the French 1988 Huriet-Sérusclat Act; to assess publication bias at a national level.Design Retrospective cohort study.Setting Representative sample of 25/48 French research ethics committees in 1994.Protocols 649 research protocols approved by committees, with follow-up information.Main outcome measures Protocols'' initial characteristics (design, study size, investigator) abstracted from committees'' archives; follow-up information (rates of initiation, completion, and publication) obtained from mailed questionnaire to principal investigators.Results Completed questionnaires were available for 649/976 (69%) protocols. Of these, 581 (90%) studies were initiated, 501/581 (86%) were completed, and 190/501 (38%) were published. Studies with confirmatory results were more likely to be published as scientific papers than were studies with inconclusive results (adjusted odds ratio 4.59, 95% confidence interval 2.21 to 9.54). Moreover, studies with confirmatory results were published more quickly than studies with inconclusive results (hazard ratio 2.48, 1.36 to 4.55).Conclusion At a national level, too many research studies are not completed, and among those completed too many are not published. We suggest capitalising on research ethics committees to register and follow all authorised research on human participants on a systematic and prospective basis.     

Diversity in the practice of district ethics committees.

A survey of ethics committees in district health authorities was carried out to find out the size and make up of committees and what information and guidance they offered to scientists who apply to do research. A sample (n = 28) of committees in England (n = 190), half from teaching districts and half from non-teaching districts, was contacted by post requesting this information. A high degree of diversity was found, not only in the methods that committees used but also in the ethical criteria each considered to be pertinent for research. It was also shown that published guidelines have made little impact. It is suggested that issuing more guidelines will be of limited use. Rather, the following are needed: information about why guidelines have been widely ignored, better communication between committees, some form of education for committee members, and a formal register of committees compiled.