LINKING INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH TO GLOBAL HEALTH EQUITY: THE LIMITED CONTRIBUTION OF BIOETHICS

Health research has been identified as a vehicle for advancing global justice in health. However, in bioethics, issues of global justice are mainly discussed within an ongoing debate on the conditions under which international clinical research is permissible. As a result, current ethical guidance predominantly links one type of international research (biomedical) to advancing one aspect of health equity (access to new treatments). International guidelines largely fail to connect international research to promoting broader aspects of health equity – namely, healthier social environments and stronger health systems. Bioethical frameworks such as the human development approach do consider how international clinical research is connected to the social determinants of health but, again, do so to address the question of when international clinical research is permissible. It is suggested that the narrow focus of this debate is shaped by high‐income countries' economic strategies. The article further argues that the debate's focus obscures a stronger imperative to consider how other types of international research might advance justice in global health. Bioethics should consider the need for non‐clinical health research and its contribution to advancing global justice.     

Justice in international clinical research

Debates about justice in international clinical research problematically conflate two quite different forms of obligation. International research ethics guidelines were intended to describe how to conduct biomedical research in a just manner at the micro or clinical level (within the researcher-participant interaction) but have come to include requirements that are clearly intended to promote justice at the global level. Ethicists have also made a variety of claims regarding what international research should contribute to global justice. This paper argues that the conflation of debates about justice at the micro and macro-levels has not only resulted in the placement of obligations upon the wrong actors but has also served to exclude relevant actors from the ethical picture. Suggestions for who should properly bear macro-level obligations of justice in international clinical research are offered. The paper further contends that, unlike researchers who violate informed consent requirements, no similar type of accountability exists for obligations of global justice, even for those obligation-bearers (incorrectly) identified by current ethics guidelines.     

Designing research funding schemes to promote global health equity: An exploration of current practice in health systems research

International research is an essential means of reducing health disparities between and within countries and should do so as a matter of global justice. Research funders from high‐income countries have an obligation of justice to support health research in low and middle‐income countries (LMICs) that furthers such objectives. This paper investigates how their current funding schemes are designed to incentivise health systems research in LMICs that promotes health equity. Semi‐structured in‐depth interviews were performed with 16 grants officers working for 11 funders and organisations that support health systems research: the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, Comic Relief, Doris Duke Foundation, European Commission, International Development Research Centre, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Research Council of Norway, Rockefeller Foundation, UK Department of International Development, UK Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust. Thematic analysis of the data demonstrates their funding schemes promote health systems research with (up to) five key features that advance health equity: being conducted with worst‐off populations, focusing on research topics that advance equitable health systems, having LMIC ownership of the research agenda, strengthening LMIC research capacity, and having an impact on health disparities. The different types of incentives that encouraged proposed projects to have these features are identified and classified by their strength (strong, moderate, weak). It is suggested that research funders ought to create and maintain funding schemes with strong incentives for the features identified above in order to more effectively help reduce global health disparities.     

Attitudes toward Post‐Trial Access to Medical Interventions: A Review of Academic Literature,Legislation, and International Guidelines

There is currently no international consensus around post‐trial obligations toward research participants, community members, and host countries. This literature review investigates arguments and attitudes toward post‐trial access. The literature review found that academic discussions focused on the rights of research participants, but offered few practical recommendations for addressing or improving current practices. Similarly, there are few regulations or legislation pertaining to post‐trial access. If regulatory changes are necessary, we need to understand the current arguments, legislation, and attitudes towards post‐trial access and participants and community members. Given that clinical trials conducted in low‐income countries will likely continue, there is an urgent need for consideration of post‐trial benefits for participants, communities, and citizens of host countries. While this issue may not be as pressing in countries where participants have access to healthcare and medicines through public schemes, it is particularly important in regions where this may not be available.     

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.     

The role of trust in global health research collaborations

Collaborations in global health research are on the rise because they enhance productivity, facilitate capacity building, accelerate output and make tackling big, multifactorial research questions possible. In this paper, I examine the concepts of trust and reliance in scientific collaborations in general, but also in the particular context of collaborations in global health research between high‐income countries and low‐and‐middle income countries (LMIC). I propose and defend the argument that given the particular characteristics of collaborations and demands of trust relationships, reliance is a better relational mode for successful collaborations. Although reliance can be difficult to establish in situations where asymmetry of power exists, trust should not be the only relational mode available to LMIC researchers because of the type of vulnerability it introduces to the relationship. I conclude that the promotion of good collaborations requires addressing the power imbalances between partners, and establishing an even playing field in global health research.     

PHARMACOGENETICS,RACE AND GLOBAL INJUSTICE1

This paper discusses the link between pharmacogenetics and race, and the global justice issues that the introduction of pharmacogenetics in pharmaceutical research and clinical practice will raise. First, it briefly outlines the likely impact of pharmacogenetics on pharmaceutical research and clinical practice within the next five to ten years and then explores the link between pharmacogenetic traits and ‘race’. It is shown that any link between apparent race and pharmacogenetics is problematic and that race cannot be used as a proxy for pharmacogenetic knowledge. The final section considers the implications of the development of pharmacogenetics for health care systems in low‐ and middle‐income countries.     

Fair Resource Allocation to Health Research: Priority Topics for Bioethics Scholarship

This article draws attention to the limited amount of scholarship on what constitutes fairness and equity in resource allocation to health research by individual funders. It identifies three key decisions of ethical significance about resource allocation that research funders make regularly and calls for prioritizing scholarship on those topics – namely, how health resources should be fairly apportioned amongst public health and health care delivery versus health research, how health research resources should be fairly allocated between health problems experienced domestically versus other health problems typically experienced by disadvantaged populations outside the funder's country, and how domestic and non‐domestic health research funding should be further apportioned to different areas, e.g. types of research and recipients. These three topics should be priorities for bioethics research because their outcomes have a substantial bearing on the achievement of health justice. The proposed agenda aims to move discussion on the ethics of health research funding beyond its current focus on the mismatch between worldwide basic and clinical research investment and the global burden of disease. Individual funders’ decision‐making on whether and to what extent to allocate resources to non‐domestic health research, health systems research, research on the social determinants of health, capacity development, and recipients in certain countries should also be the focus of ethical scrutiny.     

Reinterpreting Responsiveness for Health Systems Research in Low and Middle‐Income Countries

The ethical concept of responsiveness has largely been interpreted in the context of international clinical research. In light of the increasing conduct of externally funded health systems research (HSR) in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), this article examines how responsiveness might be understood for such research and how it can be applied. It contends that four features (amongst others) set HSR in LMICs apart from international clinical research: a focus on systems; being context‐driven; being policy‐driven; and being closely linked to development objectives. These features support reinterpreting responsiveness for HSR in LMICs as responsiveness to systems needs, where health system performance assessments can be relied upon to identify systems needs, and/or responsiveness to systems priorities, which entails aligning research with HSR priorities set through country‐owned processes involving national and sub‐national policymakers from host countries. Both concepts may be difficult to achieve in practice. Country ownership is not an established fact for many countries and alignment to their priorities may be meaningless without it. It is argued that more work is, therefore, needed to identify strategies for how the responsiveness requirement can be ethically fulfilled for HSR in LMICs under non‐ideal conditions such as where host countries have not set HSR priorities via country‐owned processes. Embeddedness is proposed as one approach that could be the focus of further development.     

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.     

Maintaining Research Integrity While Balancing Cultural Sensitivity: A Case Study and Lessons From the Field

Contemporary emphasis on creating culturally relevant and context specific knowledge increasingly drives researchers to conduct their work in settings outside their home country. This often requires researchers to build relationships with various stakeholders who may have a vested interest in the research. This case study examines the tension between relationship development with stakeholders and maintaining study integrity, in the context of potential harms, data credibility and cultural sensitivity. We describe an ethical breach in the conduct of global health research by a arising from the ad‐hoc participation of a community stakeholder external to the visiting research group. A framework for reflection is developed from a careful examination of underlying factors and presented with a discussion of consequences and mitigation measures. This framework aims to present lessons learned for researchers working abroad who might face similar situations in their work.     

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.     

Standard of Care,Professional Obligations,and Distributive Justice

The problem of standard‐of‐care in clinical research concerns the level of care that investigators ought to provide to research subjects in the control arm of their clinical trials. Commentators differ sharply on whether subjects in trials conducted in lower income countries should be provided with the same level of care as subjects in trials conducted in higher income countries. I consider an argument that commentators have employed on both sides of this debate: professional role arguments. These arguments claim to justify a conclusion to the standard‐of‐care problem solely by appeal to the professional obligations that investigators possess. I argue that prominent versions of professional role arguments cannot justify a solution to the problem of standard‐of‐care that is both determinate and reasonable simply by appeal to the professional obligations of investigators. Instead, to do so, one must also (1) determine the level of care or types of treatment that individuals are entitled to as a matter of distributive justice, and (2) identify which agents possess the duties that correspond to these entitlements. The level of care that investigators owe to subjects in the control arm of their clinical trials is thus in part dependent on the level of care that these subjects are entitled to as a matter of distributive justice, and whether it is the investigators who possess the corresponding distributive obligation to provide them with the care that they are entitled to.     

ALTERNATIVES TO NATIONAL AVERAGE INCOME DATA AS ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INTERNATIONAL SUBSIDIES: A SOCIAL JUSTICE PERSPECTIVE

Current strategies to address global inequities in access to life‐saving vaccines use averaged national income data to determine eligibility. While largely successful in the lowest income countries, we argue that this approach could lead to significant inefficiencies from the standpoint of justice if applied to middle‐income countries, where income inequalities are large and lead to national averages that obscure truly needy populations. Instead, we suggest alternative indicators more sensitive to social justice concerns that merit consideration by policy‐makers developing new initiatives to redress health inequities in middle‐income countries.     

Off‐Shoring Clinical Research: Exploitation and the Reciprocity Constraint

The last 20 years have seen a staggering growth in the practice of off‐shoring clinical research to low‐and middle‐income countries (LICs and MICs), a growth that has been matched by the neoliberal policies adopted by host countries towards attracting trials to their shores. A recurring concern in this context is the charge of exploitation, linked to various aspects of off‐shoring. In this paper, I examine Alan Wertheimer's approach and offer an alternative view of understanding exploitation in this context. I will suggest that the justification for the enterprise of research is largely dependent on its integration within a health system from which participants regularly benefit and I argue that an attention to a principle of reciprocity will enable us to better recognize and address exploitation in international research.     

Evaluating the Usefulness of Compulsory Licensing in Developing Countries: A Comparative Study of Thai and Brazilian Experiences Regarding Access to Aids Treatments

While compulsory licensing (CL) is described in the TRIPS agreement as flexibility to protect public health by improving access to medicines in developing countries, a recent literature contends adversely that CL may harm public health. Therefore, this article intends to evaluate the usefulness of CL in the South through the prism of obligations and goals entrusted to patent holders (the effective and non‐abusive exploitation of patents in order to achieve industrial and health developments) and in light of experiences in Thailand and Brazil regarding access to antiretroviral drugs. In this way, it shows that the obligations assigned to patent holders were better served by the recipients of CL and brought significant health and industrial benefits in the two high middle‐income countries. In particular, CL allowed the scaling‐up of free and universal access to antiretroviral drugs by assuring the financial sustainability of these public health programs endangered by monopolistic practices from patent holders.     

A call from justice to support the people in Gaza

Using Madison Powers and Ruth Faden's definition of ‘well‐being,’ the authors argue that Israel, the international community and public health practitioners have a justice‐based obligation to assist the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Focusing on Palestinians in Gaza, the authors first outline a normative framework of justice, as articulated by Powers and Faden. Following Powers and Faden's assumption that empirical assessments of justice can be made using the six dimensions of well‐being, the authors next present current data on the living conditions in Gaza and describe how these conditions prevent residents from achieving sufficient levels of well‐being. Using these indicators to demonstrate that Palestinians living in Gaza suffer deficiencies in these dimensions of well‐being, the authors present a strong argument from justice to assist the residents of Gaza. The medical, public health, and bioethics community cannot sit idle while injustice continues.     

The Ethics of Medical Practitioner Migration From Low-Resourced Countries to the Developed World: A Call for Action by Health Systems and Individual Doctors

Medical migration appears to be an increasing global phenomenon, with complex contributing factors. Although it is acknowledged that such movements are inevitable, given the current globalized economy, the movement of health professionals from their country of training raises questions about equity of access and quality of care. Concerns arise if migration occurs from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to high-income countries (HICs). The actions of HICs receiving medical practitioners from LMICs are examined through the global justice theories of John Rawls and Immanuel Kant. These theories were initially proposed by Pogge (1988) and Tan (1997) and, in this work, are extended to the issue of medical migration. Global justice theories propose that instead of looking at health needs and workforce issues within their national boundaries, HICs should be guided by principles of justice relevant to the needs of health systems on a global scale. Issues of individual justice are also considered within the framework of rights and social responsibilities of individual medical practitioners. Local and international policy changes are suggested based on both global justice theories and the ideals of individual justice.     

Global health inequalities and the need for solidarity: a view from the Global South

Although the world has experienced remarkable progress in health care since the last half of the 20th century, global health inequalities still persist. In some poor countries life expectancy is between 37‐40 years lower than in rich countries; furthermore, maternal and infant mortality is high and there is lack of access to basic preventive and life‐saving medicines, as well a high prevalence of neglected diseases, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Moreover, globalization has made the world more connected than before such that health challenges today are no longer limited within national or regional boundaries, making all persons equally vulnerable. Because of this, diseases in the most affluent countries are closely connected with diseases in the poorest countries. In this paper, we argue that, because of global health inequalities, in a situation of equal vulnerability, there is need for global solidarity not only as a means of reducing health inequalities, but also as a way of putting up a united force against global health challenges. We argue for an African approach to solidarity in which the humanity of a person is not determined by his/her being human or rational capacity, but by his/her capacity to live a virtuous life. According to this view of solidarity, because no one is self‐sufficient, no individual can survive alone. If we are to collectively flourish in a world where no individual, nation or region has all the health resources or protection needed for survival, we must engage in solidarity where we remain compassionate and available to one another at all times.     

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.