US IRBs confronting research in the developing world

Increasingly, US‐sponsored research is carried out in developing countries, but how US Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) approach the challenges they then face is unclear. METHODS: I conducted in‐depth interviews of about 2 hours each, with 46 IRB chairs, directors, administrators and members. I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs in the United States (US) (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding), and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 (55%). RESULTS: US IRBs face ethical and logistical challenges in interpreting and applying principles and regulations in developing countries, given economic and health disparities, and limited contextual knowledge. These IRBs perceive wide variations in developing world IRBs/RECs' quality, resources and training; and health systems in some countries may have long‐standing practices of corruption. These US IRBs often know little of local contexts, regulations and standards of care, and struggle with understandings of other cultures' differing views of autonomy, and risks and benefits of daily life. US IRBs thus face difficult decisions, including how to interpret principles, how much to pay subjects and how much sustainability to require from researchers. IRB responses and solutions include trying to maintain higher standards for developing world research, obtain cultural expertise, build IRB infrastructure abroad, communicate with foreign IRBs, and ‘negotiate’ for maximum benefits for participants and fearing ‘worst‐case scenarios’. CONCLUSIONS: US and foreign IRBs confront a series of tensions and dilemmas in reviewing developing world research. These data have important implications for increased education of IRBs/RECs and researchers in the US and abroad, and for research and practice.     

Post‐trial obligations in the Declaration of Helsinki 2013: classification,reconstruction and interpretation

The general aim of this article is to give a critical interpretation of post‐trial obligations towards individual research participants in the Declaration of Helsinki 2013. Transitioning research participants to the appropriate health care when a research study ends is a global problem. The publication of a new version of the Declaration of Helsinki is a great opportunity to discuss it. In my view, the Declaration of Helsinki 2013 identifies at least two clearly different types of post‐trial obligations, specifically, access to care after research and access to information after research. The agents entitled to receive post‐trial access are the individual participants in research studies. The Declaration identifies the sponsors, researchers and host country governments as the main agents responsible for complying with the post‐trial obligations mentioned above. To justify this interpretation of post‐trial obligations, I first introduce a classification of post‐trial obligations and illustrate its application with examples from post‐trial ethics literature. I then make a brief reconstruction of the formulations of post‐trial obligations of the Declaration of Helsinki from 2000 to 2008 to correlate the changes with some of the most salient ethical arguments. Finally I advance a critical interpretation of the latest formulation of post‐trial obligations. I defend the view that paragraph 34 of ‘Post‐trial provisions’ is an improved formulation by comparison with earlier versions, especially for identifying responsible agents and abandoning ambiguous ‘fair benefit’ language. However, I criticize the disappearance of ‘access to other appropriate care’ present in the Declaration since 2004 and the narrow scope given to obligations of access to information after research.     

Research ethics guidelines and moral obligations to developing countries: Capacity‐building and benefits

This article outlines challenges to benefitting developing countries that are hosts of international research. In the context of existing guidance and frameworks for benefit‐sharing, it aims to provoke dialog about socioeconomic factors and other background conditions that influence what constitute benefits in a given host setting, and about the proportionality between benefits to hosts and benefits to sponsors and researchers. It argues that capacity‐building for critical thinking and negotiation in many developing country governments, institutions, and communities is a benefit because it can help to overcome background conditions that impinge on equitable international research negotiations, partnerships, and benefits. Enhancing the capacity for both critical thinking and negotiation can, like other targets of capacity‐building, nurture respectful and trusting partnerships that benefit all stakeholders in international research.     

Developing Ethical Awareness in Global Health: Four Cases for Medical Educators

In recent years, the growth of interest in global health among medical students and residents has led to an abundance of short‐term training opportunities in low‐resource environments. Given the disparities in resources, needs and expectations between visitors and their hosts, these experiences can raise complex ethical concerns. Recent calls for best practices and ethical guidelines indicate a need for the development of ethical awareness among medical trainees, their sponsoring and host institutions, and supervising faculty. As a teaching tool to promote this awareness, we developed a scenario that captures many common ethical issues from four different perspectives. Each perspective is presented in case format followed by questions. Taken together, the four cases may be used to identify many of the elements of a well‐designed global health training experience.     

Dilemmas in international research and the value of practical wisdom

When conducting research in an international setting, in a country different than that of the researcher, unpredictable circumstances can arise. A study conducted by a novice North American researcher with a vulnerable population in northern Ghana highlights these happenings with an emphasis placed on the ethical challenges encountered. An illustration from the research is used to highlight an ethical dilemma while in the field, and how utilizing a moral decision‐making framework can assist in making choices about a participant's right to autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality during the research process. Moral frameworks, however, can never be enough to solve a dilemma since guidelines only describe what to aim for and not how to interpret or use them. Researchers must therefore strive to move beyond these frameworks to employ practical wisdom or phronesis so to combine the right thing to do with the skill required to figure out what the right choice is. The skill of practical wisdom must be acquired because without it international researchers indecisively fumble around with good intentions, often leaving a situation in worse shape than they found it.     

Understanding informed consent for participation in international health research

To participate in health research, there is a need for well-administered informed consent. Understanding of informed consent, especially in international health research, is influenced by the participants' understanding of information and the meaning attached to the information communicated to them regarding the purpose and procedure of the research. Incorrect information and the power differential between researcher and participants may lead to participants becoming victims of harmful research procedures. Meningitis epidemics in Kano in early 1996 led to a response from drug companies, especially Pfizer, as well as humanitarian workers from Médecins Sans Frontiers, which resulted in an unethical trial. Pfizer's drug trial during the epidemics has left a lasting controversy, which has yet to be resolved. This paper examines the key issues surrounding the controversy, discusses the context of informed decision-making, the ethical issues and implications of the incident, and concludes with some recommendations. Relevant texts, journals, Internet materials, newspaper articles and documentary materials on the conduct of the Pfizer's Trovan trial have been consulted. Four types of action (act intuitively, act rationally, act ignorantly, and act contextually – based on information provided) are identified as possible options for decision making. Participants most likely acted in ignorance due to poor understanding of the information contained in the verbal informed consent administered, thereby raising ethical issues. It is concluded that health research ethics committees have an important role to play nationally and locally in overseeing research, and in avoiding future occurrences.     

Reporting of informed consent, standard of care and post-trial obligations in global randomized intervention trials: a systematic survey of registered trials

Objective:  Ethical guidelines are designed to ensure benefits, protection and respect of participants in clinical research. Clinical trials must now be registered on open-access databases and provide details on ethical considerations. This systematic survey aimed to determine the extent to which recently registered clinical trials report the use of standard of care and post-trial obligations in trial registries, and whether trial characteristics vary according to setting.
Methods:  We selected global randomized trials registered on http://www.clinicaltrials.gov and http://www.controlled-trials.com . We searched for intervention trials of HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis from 9 October 2004, the date of the most recent version of the Helsinki Declaration, to 10 April 2007.
Results:  We collected data from 312 trials. Fifty-eight percent (58%, 95% CI  =  53 to 64) of trial protocols report informed consent. Fifty-eight percent (58%, 95% CI  =  53 to 64) of trials report active controls. Almost no trials (1%, 95% CI  =  0.5 to 3) mention post-trial provisions. Most trials measure surrogate outcomes. Twenty percent (20%, 95% CI  =  16 to 25) of trials measure patient-important outcomes, such as death; and the odds that these outcomes are in a low income country are five times greater than for a developed country (odds ratio (OR) 5.03, 95% CI  =  2.70 to 9.35, p  = < 0.001). Pharmaceutical companies are involved in 28% (CI  =  23 to 33) of trials and measure surrogate outcomes more often than nonpharmaceutical companies (OR 2.45, 95% CI  =  1.18 to 5.09, p  =  0.31).
Conclusion:  We found a large discrepancy in the quality of reporting and approaches used in trials in developing settings compared to wealthier settings.     

Engagement as co‐constructing knowledge: A moral necessity in public health research

Undertaking engagement in public health research is ethically essential. There is a growing emphasis on practicing engagement as the co‐construction of knowledge, which goes beyond other common forms of engagement in health research practice: consulting and informing. Taking such an approach means researchers jointly construct knowledge with research users and beneficiaries; all parties design and conduct research together and share decision‐making power. This article makes the normative argument that such engagement is necessary to achieve the foundational moral aims of public health research—building relations of equality and addressing the health needs of those considered disadvantaged—which reflect the field's underlying commitment to social justice. It next identifies and discusses three ways in which co‐constructing knowledge advances those moral aims: by facilitating self‐determination, supporting individuals’ right to research, and maximizing social knowledge to address cognitive and epistemic injustice. Objections to the arguments presented in the article are then articulated and defended against.     

Science in the Service of Patients: Lessons from the Past in the Moral Battle for the Future of Medical Education

Medical schools instill a classic moral standoff in which the responsibility for the betterment of the patient stands at odds with the responsibility for the betterment of society. In critical ways, the latter, in the form of a robust research and technology-driven enterprise, has taken precedence over the former, resulting in harm to patients and individual dignity. This tradeoff can be traced to Abraham Flexner, the father of American medical education. In the wake of the Flexner report, American medicine set out on a course of exponential scientific advancement, but the mistreatment of research subjects and the erosion of the doctor-patient relationship in a health care system that is increasingly unaffordable, complex, and impersonal suggest that such progress has come at a price. Recent efforts by medical schools to emphasize humanism in their curricula and admissions processes have shown promise in orienting the values of academic medicine toward the individual patient’s well-being.     

Benefit Sharing in a Global Context: Working Towards Solutions for Implementation

Due to the state of globalized clinical research, questions have been raised as to what, if any, benefits those who contribute to research should receive. One model for compensating research participants is “benefit sharing,” and the basic premise is that, as a matter of justice, those who contribute to scientific research should share in its benefits. While incorporated into several international documents for over two decades, benefit sharing has only been sparsely implemented. This analysis begins by addressing the concept of benefit sharing, its historical development, and how it has been applied in the context of virus sharing for influenza research. The second portion of this analysis presents recommendations for ensuring benefit sharing. These recommendations are threefold: 1) an emphasis on social pressure, 2) the revision of international documents as means to ensure benefit sharing, and 3) greater collaboration between sponsor IRB and host country IRB. Because clinical research is a globalized industry, a global model will be proposed in the second that focuses on collaboration between the sponsor and host country. This collaboration is vital in order to ensure that proper forms of benefit sharing are accomplished as a matter of justice.     

Evaluating the risks of public health programs: Rational antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance

Existing ethical frameworks for public health provide insufficient guidance on how to evaluate the risks of public health programs that compromise the best clinical interests of present patients for the benefit of others. Given the relevant similarity of such programs to clinical research, we suggest that insights from the long‐standing debate about acceptable risk in clinical research can helpfully inform and guide the evaluation of risks posed by public health programs that compromise patients’ best clinical interests. We discuss how lessons learned regarding the ethics of risk in one context can be fruitfully transferred to the other, using the example of a so‐called ‘rational antibiotic use’ guideline that limits antimicrobial prescribing in order to curb antimicrobial resistance.     

Investigating assumptions of vulnerability: A case study of the exclusion of psychiatric inpatients as participants in genetic research in low‐ and middle‐income contexts

Psychiatric genetic research investigates the genetic basis of psychiatric disorders with the aim of more effectively understanding, treating, or, ultimately, preventing such disorders. Given the challenges of recruiting research participants into such studies, the potential for long‐term benefits of such research, and seemingly minimal risk, a strong claim could be made that all non‐acute psychiatric inpatients, including forensic and involuntary patients, should be included in such research, provided they have capacity to consent. There are tensions, however, regarding the ethics of recruiting psychiatric inpatients into such studies. In this paper our intention is to elucidate the source of these tensions from the perspective of research ethics committee interests and decision‐making. We begin by defining inpatient status and outline some of the assumptions surrounding the structures of inpatient care. We then introduce contemporary conceptions of vulnerability, including Florencia Luna’s account of vulnerability which we use as a framework for our analysis. While psychiatric inpatients could be subject to consent‐related vulnerabilities, we suggest that a particular kind of exploitation‐related vulnerability comes to the fore in the context of our case study. Moreover, a subset of these ethical concerns takes on particular weight in the context of genetic research in low‐ and middle‐income countries. At the same time, the automatic exclusion of inpatients from research elicits justice‐related vulnerabilities.     

Research ethics capacity development in Africa: exploring a model for individual success

The Johns Hopkins-Fogarty African Bioethics Training Program (FABTP) has offered a fully-funded, one-year, non-degree training opportunity in research ethics to health professionals, ethics committee members, scholars, journalists and scientists from countries across sub-Saharan Africa. In the first 9 years of operation, 28 trainees from 13 African countries have trained with FABTP. Any capacity building investment requires periodic critical evaluation of the impact that training dollars produce. In this paper we describe and evaluate FABTP and the efforts of its trainees. Our data show that since 2001, the 28 former FABTP trainees have authored or co-authored 105 new bioethics-related publications; were awarded 33 bioethics-related grants; played key roles on 78 bioethics-related research studies; and participated in 198 bioethics workshops or conferences. Over the past nine years, trainees have collectively taught 48 separate courses related to bioethics and have given 170 presentations on various topics in the field. Many former trainees have pursued and completed doctoral degrees in bioethics; some have become editorial board members for bioethics journals. Female trainees were, on average, less experienced at matriculation and produced fewer post-training outputs than their male counterparts. More comprehensive studies are needed to determine the relationships between age, sex, previous experience and training program outputs.     

The Vulnerability of Study Participants in the Context of Transnational Biomedical Research: From Conceptual Considerations to Practical Implications

Outsourcing clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies from industrialized countries to low‐ (middle)‐income countries – summarized as transnational biomedical research (TBR) – has lead to many concerns about ethical standards. Whether study participants are particularly vulnerable is one of those concerns. However, the concept of vulnerability is still vague and varies in its definition. Despite the fact that important international ethical guidelines such as the Declaration of Helsinki by the World Medical Association or the Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects by the Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences refer to vulnerability as ethical principle, each of their approaches are different. To overcome these shortcomings, we analyze and unite different approaches of vulnerability and develop practical criteria in order to operationalize the concept especially for the context of TBR. These criteria refer to the context of a study as well as the characteristics and the current living situation of study participants. Based on a case study of an HIV‐vaccine‐trial conducted in India we demonstrate how those criteria can be applied in a retrospective way to identify potential ethical conflicts. The criteria can also indicate a prospective function for ethical pre‐assessment. For this, we provide an outlook for three major topics: 1. Vulnerability as a normative concept: Different ways of protection; 2. The relevance of transparency and 3. Vulnerability as an instrument to increase decision participation of human subjects.     

Research versus practice: The dilemmas of research ethics in the era of learning health‐care systems

In this article we attempt to answer the question of how the ethical and conceptual framework (ECF) for a learning health‐care system (LHS) affects some of the main controversies in research ethics by addressing five key problems of research ethics: (a) What is the difference between practice and research? (b) What is the relationship between research ethics and clinical ethics? (c) What is the ethical relevance of the principle of clinical equipoise? (d) Does participation in research require a higher standard of informed consent than the practice of medicine? and (e) What ethical principle should take precedence in medicine? These questions allow us to construct two opposite idealized positions on the distinction between research and practice: the integration model and the segregation model of research and practice. We then compare the ECF for an LHS with these two idealized positions. We argue that the ECF for a LHS does not, in fact, solve these problems, but that it is a third, separate position in the relationship between research ethics and clinical ethics. Moreover, we suggest that the ECF for a LHS raises new ethical problems that require additional ethical analysis and justification. Our article contributes to the discussion on the relationship between research ethics and clinical ethics, revealing that although a learning health‐care system may significantly change the landscape of health care, some ethical dilemmas still require resolving on both theoretical and policy‐making levels.     

Ethics of care and HIV: a case for rural women in India

Recent literature shows that ethics of care can be used as a theoretical basis to add a new, important dimension to social issues. This paper argues for a similar extension of the theoretical support from ethics of care to an area in bioethics. Specifically, it contends that a justification based ethics of care can be constructed to argue for a moral obligation to give some priority in the HIV-related initiatives to one of most vulnerable groups; namely, the rural women in India. In an epidemic situation this care-based approach has certain advantages as a moral justification over the usual traditional approaches.     

Enriching the concept of vulnerability in research ethics: An integrative and functional account

The concept of vulnerability is widely used in research ethics to signal attention to participants who require special protections in research. However, this concept is vague and under‐theorized. There is also growing concern that the dominant categorical approach to vulnerability (as exemplified by research ethics regulations and guidelines delineating vulnerable groups) is ethically problematic because of its assumptions about groups of people and is, in fact, not very guiding. An agreed‐upon strategy is to move from categorical towards analytical approaches (focused on analyzing types and sources of vulnerability) to vulnerability. Beyond this agreement, however, scholars have been advancing competing accounts of vulnerability without consensus about its appropriate operationalization in research ethics. Based on previous debates, we propose that a comprehensive account of vulnerability for research ethics must include four components: definition, normative justifications, application, and implications. Concluding that no existing accounts integrate these components in a functional (i.e., practically applicable) manner, we propose an integrative and functional account of vulnerability inspired by pragmatist theory and enriched by bioethics literature. Using an example of research on deep brain stimulation for treatment‐resistant depression, we illustrate how the integrative‐functional account can guide the analysis of vulnerability in research within a pragmatist, evidence‐based approach to research ethics. While ultimately there are concerns to be addressed in existing research ethics guidelines on vulnerability, the integrative‐functional account can serve as an analytic tool to help researchers, research ethics boards, and other relevant actors fill in the gaps in the current landscape of research ethics governance.