HIV international clinical research: exploitation and risk

This paper aims to show that to reduce the level of exploitation present in (some) international clinical trials, research sponsors must aim to provide both an ex-ante expected gain in utility and a fair ex-post distribution of benefits for research subjects. I suggest the following principles of fair risk distribution in international research as the basis of a normative definition of fairness: (a) Persons should not be forced (by circumstance) to gamble in order to achieve or protect basic goods; (b) In cases where one party is gambling with basic goods and the other party is not, the distribution of benefits and burdens must be arranged so that they are of greatest benefit to the worst off; (c) In relationships where one party is gambling for basic goods and the other party is not, the party gambling for basic goods must be assured of some guaranteed benefits in addition to the chance of getting some practical benefits. These principles are applied to the case of HIV international research. I conclude that the research (as described) is mutually advantageous but still exploitative because the distribution of surplus benefits is unfair. It is unfair because research subjects are gambling with and for basic goods but they are not assured of a fair ex-post distribution of benefits. Principles (b) and (c) are not satisfied. Research participants are not accorded enough guaranteed benefits to outweigh the risks they undertake.     

POST‐TRIAL ACCESS TO ANTIRETROVIRALS: WHO OWES WHAT TO WHOM?

Many recent articles argue that participants who seroconvert during HIV prevention trials deserve treatment when they develop AIDS, and there is a general consensus that the participants in HIV/AIDS treatment trials should have continuing post‐trial access. As a result, the primary concern of many ethicists and activists has shifted from justifying an obligation to treat trial participants, to working out mechanisms through which treatment could be provided. In this paper I argue that this shift frequently conceals an important assumption: that if there is an obligation to supply treatment, then any party who could provide it may be prevailed upon to discharge the obligation. This assumption is false. The reasons why trial participants should get ART affect who has the duty to provide it. We should not burden governments with the obligations of sponsors, nor researchers with the obligations of the international community. And we should not deprive a group of treatment because their need is less salient than that of research participants. Insisting otherwise may lead to people being wrongfully deprived of access to antiretrovirals.     

Exploitations and their complications: the necessity of identifying the multiple forms of exploitation in pharmaceutical trials

Human subject trials of pharmaceuticals in low and middle income countries (LMICs) have been associated with the moral wrong of exploitation on two grounds. First, these trials may include a placebo control arm even when proven treatments for a condition are in use in other (usually wealthier) parts of the world. Second, the trial researchers or sponsors may fail to make a successful treatment developed through the trial available to either the trial participants or the host community following the trial. Many commentators have argued that a single form of exploitation takes place during human subject research in LMICs. These commentators do not, however, agree as to what kind of moral wrong exploitation is or when exploitation is morally impermissible. In this paper, I have two primary goals. First, I will argue for a taxonomy of exploitation that identifies three distinct forms of exploitation. While each of these forms of exploitation has its critics, I will argue that they can each be developed into plausible accounts of exploitation tied to different vulnerabilities and different forms of wrongdoing. Second, I will argue that each of these forms of exploitation can coexist in single situations, including human subject trials of pharmaceuticals. This lesson is important, since different forms of exploitation in a single relationship can influence, among other things, whether the relationship is morally permissible.     

Because we can: clashes of perspective over researcher obligation in the failed PrEP trials

This article examines the relationship between bioethics and the therapeutic standards in HIV prevention research in the developing world, focusing on the closure of the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) trials in the early 2000s. I situate the PrEP trials in the historical context of the vertical transmission debates of the 1990s, where there was protracted debate over the use of placebos despite the existence of a proven intervention. I then discuss the dramatic improvement in the clinical management of HIV and the treatment access movement, and consider how these contexts have influenced research practice. I argue that as HIV prevention trials oblige researchers to observe the rate at which vulnerable people under their care acquire HIV, there is an obligation to provide antiretroviral treatment to seroconverters and other health care benefits that fall within the scope of researchers' entrustment, both to avoid exploitation and to enact reciprocal justice. I argue against propositions that the obligations to provide specific benefits are vague, fall only upon researchers and sponsors, and create injustices by privileging the few over the many. Finally, I contend that the realisation of a broader standard of care in HIV prevention research broadens the role of research from being a simple tool to produce knowledge to a complex intervention that can play a part in the reduction of health disparities.     

Best practices for the use and exchange of invertebrate biological control genetic resources relevant for food and agriculture

The Nagoya Protocol is a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity that provides a framework for the effective implementation of the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including invertebrate biological control agents. The Protocol came into force on 12 October 2014, and requires signatories and countries acceding to the Protocol to develop a legal framework to ensure access to genetic resources, benefit-sharing and compliance. The biological control community of practice needs to comply with access and benefit sharing regulations arising under the Protocol. The IOBC Global Commission on Biological Control and Access and Benefit Sharing has prepared this best practices guide for the use and exchange of invertebrate biological control genetic resources for the biological control community of practice to demonstrate due diligence in responding to access and benefit sharing requirements, and to reassure the international community that biological control is a very successful and environmentally safe pest management method based on the use of biological diversity. We propose that components of best practice include: collaborations to facilitate information exchange about what invertebrate biological control agents are available and where they may be obtained; knowledge sharing through freely available databases that document successes (and failures); cooperative research to develop capacity in source countries; and transfer of production technology to provide opportunities for small-scale economic activity. We also provide a model concept agreement that can be used for scientific research and non-commercial release into nature where access and benefit sharing regulations exist, and a model policy for provision of invertebrate biological control agents to other parties where access and benefit sharing regulations are not restrictive or do not exist.     

Standard of Care,Institutional Obligations,and Distributive Justice

The problem of standard of care in clinical research concerns the level of treatment that investigators must provide to subjects in clinical trials. Commentators often formulate answers to this problem by appealing to two distinct types of obligations: professional obligations and natural duties. In this article, I investigate whether investigators also possess institutional obligations that are directly relevant to the problem of standard of care, that is, those obligations a person has because she occupies a particular institutional role. I examine two types of institutional contexts: (1) public research agencies – agencies or departments of states that fund or conduct clinical research in the public interest; and (2) private‐for‐profit corporations. I argue that investigators who are employed or have their research sponsored by the former have a distinctive institutional obligation to conduct their research in a way that is consistent with the state's duty of distributive justice to provide its citizens with access to basic health care, and its duty to aid citizens of lower income countries. By contrast, I argue that investigators who are employed or have their research sponsored by private‐for‐profit corporations do not possess this obligation nor any other institutional obligation that is directly relevant to the ethics of RCTs. My account of the institutional obligations of investigators aims to contribute to the development of a reasonable, distributive justice‐based account of standard of care.     

Community engagement in global health research that advances health equity

Community engagement is gaining prominence in global health research. So far, a philosophical rationale for why researchers should perform community engagement during such research has not been provided by ethics scholars. Its absence means that conducting community engagement is still often viewed as no more than a ‘good idea’ or ‘good practice’ rather than ethically required. In this article, we argue that shared health governance can establish grounds for requiring the engagement of low‐ and middle‐income country (LMIC) community members in global health research, where such research aims to help reduce health disparities. This philosophical basis has important implications for the ethical goals ascribed to engagement and the approach adopted to undertake it. We suggest the ethical goals of engagement in equity‐oriented global health research should include: (a) generating research topics and questions that reflect the key problems disadvantaged groups face in accessing healthcare, services and broader social determinants of health and (b) promoting the translation of research findings into policy and practice in ways that benefit the health of disadvantaged groups. We propose engagement practice should have the following features: deliberation with LMIC community members to make a range of project decisions, beginning with setting research topics and questions; inclusion of members of disadvantaged groups and those with the power to change policy and practice to benefit them; and purposeful structuring of deliberations to minimize the impact of power disparities between LMIC community members. Finally, we reflect on how these features differ from those typical of much current community engagement practice in LMICs.     

Protecting communities in health research from exploitation

Guidelines for health research focus on protecting individual research subjects. Yet several commentators have argued that protecting individual subjects, while undoubtedly important, is not sufficient to ensure ethical research. It is also vital to protect the communities involved in health research. In particular, a number of studies have been criticized on the grounds that they exploited host communities. Although these criticisms have received a good deal of attention, there has been no systematic analysis of what constitutes community exploitation in health research, nor an assessment of what safeguards are needed to protect against it. This is a serious deficiency. The absence of an analysis of community exploitation makes it impossible to ensure that host communities are protected against exploitation. The absence of an analysis also raises the possibility that charges of exploitation may block important research, without any way of assessing whether the charges are warranted. The present paper attempts to address these concerns by providing an analysis of community exploitation and, based on this analysis, determining what safeguards are needed to protect communities in health research against exploitation.     

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.     

Preventable diseases; the scope of public health

The purpose of a department of public health is to put into effect for the benefit of all the people of a community the practical lessons of preventive medicine. The scope of public health work is chiefly determined by our knowledge of the causes of the preventable diseases. We do not know how to prevent all diseases. We do, however, know effective ways to prevent or to reduce the occurrence of at least a dozen varieties of disease. Every health department ought to provide for a program and services which will prevent so far as possible the preventable diseases and the preventable hazards to health. To concentrate on prevention is to avoid diversion by specious arguments into the fields of medical care of the sick.     

PREVENTABLE DISEASES: THE SCOPE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

The purpose of a department of public health is to put into effect for the benefit of all the people of a community the practical lessons of preventive medicine. The scope of public health work is chiefly determined by our knowledge of the causes of the preventable diseases. We do not know how to prevent all diseases. We do, however, know effective ways to prevent or to reduce the occurrence of at least a dozen varieties of disease.Every health department ought to provide for a program and services which will prevent so far as possible the preventable diseases and the preventable hazards to health. To concentrate on prevention is to avoid diversion by specious arguments into the fields of medical care of the sick.     

The benefit sharing vision of H3Africa

One of the central ethical tenets of research in developing countries is the sponsor's obligation to benefit host participants and communities. Two known models of benefits provision dominate the ethical discourse of research in developing countries. The first model, known as the “reasonable availability,” endorses the obligation to provide interventions proven to be effective at the end of a study. This contrasts with the second model, known as “fair benefits,” which endorses other forms of benefits that host communities may deem as fair beyond those derived directly from the study's findings. This paper explores a third benefit model consistent with the writings of the Human Hereditary and Health in Africa (H3Africa) research initiative. The H3Africa—a North‐South collaborative initiative predicated by U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust and the African Society of Human Genetics upholds a benefit model that endorses capacity building as the primary obligation of its research agenda. This is evident by the endorsement of mechanisms to strengthen capacity building in its research projects. While capacity building remains a plausible means of improving the expertise, quality and independence of research in Africa, sustainable measures are needed to realizing the full potential for African‐led research on the continent.     

It can't happen here - can it?

If scientific advice is to have any value, it must come from sources that are not under any obligation to any organisation, public or private. Most principal scientific organisations in Western countries have similar ideas about the importance of independence but the independence of American science is being eroded.     

BENEFITS TO RESEARCH SUBJECTS IN INTERNATIONAL TRIALS: DO THEY REDUCE EXPLOITATION OR INCREASE UNDUE INDUCEMENT?

There is an alleged tension between undue inducement and exploitation in research trials. This paper considers claims that increasing the benefits to research subjects enrolled in international, externally‐sponsored clinical trials should be avoided on the grounds that it may result in the undue inducement of research subjects. It proceeds from the premise that there are good grounds for thinking that, at least some, international research sponsors exploit trial participants because they do not provide the research population with a fair share of the benefits of research. This provides a prima facie argument for increasing the benefits for research participants. Concern over undue inducement is a legitimate moral concern; however, if this concern is to prevent research populations from receiving their fair share of benefits from research there must be sufficient evidence that these benefits will unduly influence patients’ decision‐making regarding trial participation. This article contributes to the debate about exploitation versus undue inducement by introducing an analysis of the available empirical research into research participants’ motivations and the influence of payments on research subjects’ behaviour and risk assessment. Admittedly, the available research in this field is limited, but the research that has been conducted suggests that financial rewards do not distort research subjects’ behaviour or blind them to the risks involved with research. Therefore, I conclude that research sponsors should prioritise the prevention of exploitation in international research by providing greater benefits to research participants.     

Replicator dynamics for optional public good games

The public goods game represents a straightforward generalization of the prisoner's dilemma to an arbitrary number of players. Since the dominant strategy is to defect, both classical and evolutionary game theory predict the asocial outcome that no player contributes to the public goods. In contrast to the compulsory public goods game, optional participation provides a natural way to avoid deadlocks in the state of mutual defection. The three resulting strategies--collaboration or defection in the public goods game, as well as not joining at all--are studied by means of a replicator dynamics, which can be completely analysed in spite of the fact that the payoff terms are nonlinear. If cooperation is valuable enough, the dynamics exhibits a rock-scissors-paper type of cycling between the three strategies, leading to sizeable average levels of cooperation in the population. Thus, voluntary participation makes cooperation feasible. But for each strategy, the average payoff value remains equal to the earnings of those not participating in the public goods game.     

生态伦理与湿地保护

生态伦理对于湿地保护的重要性主要体现为促进人类对湿地及其价值的正确认识、加强人类保护湿地的自我约束与社会舆论监督、提供制定和实施湿地保护法律法规的伦理基础。生态伦理对于湿地保护的要求主要体现在:人地伦理方面要求人类应当合理利用湿地资源、反对掠夺性的湿地开发、要特别保护湿地濒危野生动植物;代内伦理方面认为当代人在利用湿地资源、满足自身利益上的机会平等,对湿地资源的保护是全人类共同的责任与义务,要求地区之间、国家之间共同协作保护湿地;代际伦理方面要求当代人在对湿地资源开发利用时,应遵循责任原则、节约原则与慎行原则,防止给后代人造成不可挽回的损害。湿地保护伦理的培育途径主要有与湿地科学研究相结合、与湿地法律法规相结合、与社会实践活动相结合、与宣传教育相结合。     

Paying People to Participate in Research: Why not?

This paper argues against paying people to participate in research. Volunteering to participate as a subject in a research program is not like taking a job. The main difference is to do with the risks inherent in research. Experimentation on human beings is, by definition, trying out something with an unknown consequence and exposes people to risks of harm which cannot be known in advance. This is the main reason for independent review by committee of research programs. It is based on a recognition that researchers are not always capable of putting the interests of their subjects ahead of their research objectives. It is not simply a matter of individual autonomy. Society has an obligation, prior to the protection of individual freedom and autonomy, to establish basic safeguards that are equitable in their operation.
Any inducement for participating in research would add to the difficulty subjects have in adequately assessing the risks of participating in research. An acceptance of inducement to participate in research would further increase the inequity of research conducted on the impecunious for the benefit of the well-off.     

Mind the gap: An empirical study of post‐trial access in HIV biomedical prevention trials

The principle of providing post‐trial access for research participants to successful products of that research is widely accepted and has been enshrined in various declarations and guidelines. While recent ethical guidelines recognise that the responsibility to provide post‐trial access extends to sponsors, regulators and government bodies as well as to researchers, it is the researchers who have the direct duty of care to participants. Researchers may thus need to act as advocates for trial participants, especially where government bodies, sponsors, and regulatory bodies have complex interests vested in decisions about whether or not new interventions are made available, how, and to whom. This paper provides an empirical account of post‐trial access in the context of HIV prevention research. It describes both access to the successful products of research and the provision antiretroviral drugs for trial participants who acquire HIV. First, we provide evidence that, in the current system, there is considerable variation in the duration and timeliness of access. We then argue that by analysing the difficulties faced by researchers to this point, and their efforts to meet this obligation, much can be learned about how to secure post‐trial access in HIV biomedical preventions trials. While researchers alone have a limited obligation, their advocacy on behalf of trial participants may be necessary to call the other parties to account.     

To strengthen consensus, consult the stakeholders

CIOMS has been criticised for not adequately consulting stakeholders about its revised ethical guidelines regarding medical research. Political and logistical issues that arise in democratic processes and open exchange of information probably contributed to this exclusion. What might CIOMS have done to be more inclusive and attain broader consensus on its proposed revisions? Consensus is dynamic, and evolves as a community digests new information and perspectives. Engaging the public (and particularly the stakeholders) in discussion about the revisions would have generated broader consensus. It would have encouraged more stakeholders (i.e. researchers, potential research participants, research institutions, or governments) to buy in. CIOMS needs a process to encourage dialogue and stakeholder input. The CIOMS guidelines themselves promote stakeholder consultation and capacity building, but CIOMS has done relatively little to distribute or promote its own guidelines. CIOMS should do more to promote its revised guidelines, and engage stakeholders in dialogue. This paper explores the bioethics debate about universal and relative values to illustrate the value of consultation and consensus building. It concludes that like research sponsors, CIOMS and similar organisations have an ethical responsibility to facilitate capacity building in less developed areas, and to participate more actively in consensus building.     

A Framework for the Monitoring and Evaluation of International Surgical Initiatives in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Background

An estimated two billion people worldwide lack adequate access to surgical care. To address this humanitarian emergency, an increasing number of international surgical partnerships are emerging between developed and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). At present, there are no clear indicators that may be used to assess the effectiveness of such initiatives.

Study Design

We conducted an international qualitative study of 31 surgeons from developed and LMICs involved in international partnerships across a variety of subspecialties. Thematic analysis and grounded theory were applied in order to develop a practical framework that may be applied to monitor and evaluate global surgical initiatives.

Results

Several themes emerged from the study: (i) there is a large unmet need to establish and maintain prospective databases in LMICs to inform the monitoring and evaluation of international surgical partnerships; (ii) assessment of initiatives must occur longitudinally over the span of several years; (ii) the domains of assessment are contextual and encompass cultural, institutional and regional factors; and (iv) evaluation strategies should explore broader impact within the community and country. Based on thematic analysis within the domains of inputs, outputs and outcomes, a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of international surgical initiatives, the Framework for the Assessment of InteRNational Surgical Success (FAIRNeSS) is proposed.

Conclusions

In response to the increasing number of surgical partnerships between developed and LMICs, we propose a framework to monitor and evaluate international surgical initiatives.