Bioethics for clinicians: 10. Research ethics

Medical research involving human subjects raises complex ethical, legal and social issues. Investigators sometimes find that their obligations with respect to a research project come into conflict with their obligations to individual patients. The ethical conduct of research rests on 3 guiding principles: respect for persons, beneficience, and justice. Respect for persons underlies the duty to obtain informed consent from study participants. Beneficence demands a favourable balance between the potential benefits and harms of participation. Justice requires that vulnerable people not be exploited and that eligible candidates who may benefit from participation not be excluded without good cause. Studies must be designed in a way that ensures the validity of findings and must address questions of sufficient importance to justify the risks of participation. In any clinical trial there must be genuine uncertainty as to which treatment arm offers the most benefit, and placebo controls should not be used if effective standard therapies exist. Researchers have a responsibility to inform themselves about the ethical, legal and policy standards that govern their activities. When difficulties arise, they should consult the existing literature and seek the advice of experts in research ethics.     

On the Alleged Right to Participate in High‐Risk Research

Reigning regulatory frameworks for biomedical research impose on researchers and research ethics committees an obligation to protect research participants from risks that are unnecessary, disproportionate to potential research benefits, and non‐minimized. Where the research has no potential to produce results of direct benefit to the subjects and the subjects are unable to give consent, these requirements are strengthened by an additional condition, that risks should not exceed a certain minimal threshold. In this article, I address the question of whether there should be limits of permissible risks in non‐therapeutic research involving competent and healthy subjects. Some commentators argue that competent and informed individuals should have a right to participate even in extremely risky research and that research ethics committees should never reject studies because they are too dangerous. To use David Shaw's expression, competent volunteers should have ‘a right to participate in high‐risk research’. I argue that this idea is ill‐founded, as it does not take into account the social mission and complex collaborative nature of research practice as well as the inequity of power between researchers and subjects. Imposition of limits on permissible risks for healthy volunteers is justified by the need to protect research enterprise and the need to protect the weaker party, namely the subjects. Also, I suggest that the best way to set boundaries on research risks is to leave the judgment of risk acceptability to research ethics committees.     

Ethical issues surrounding controlled human infection challenge studies in endemic low-and middle-income countries

Controlled human infection challenge studies (CHIs) involve intentionally exposing research participants to, and/or thereby infecting them with, micro-organisms. There have been increased calls for more CHIs to be conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where many relevant diseases are endemic. This article is based on a research project that identified and analyzed ethical and regulatory issues related to endemic LMIC CHIs via (a) a review of relevant literature and (b) qualitative interviews involving 45 scientists and ethicists with relevant expertise. In this article we argue that though there is an especially strong case for conducting CHIs in endemic (LMIC) settings, certain ethical issues related to the design and conduct of such studies (in such settings) nonetheless warrant particularly careful attention. We focus on ethical implications of endemic LMIC CHIs regarding (a) potential direct benefits for participants, (b) risks to participants, (c) third-party risks, (d) informed consent, (e) payment of participants, and (f) community engagement. We conclude that there is a strong ethical rationale to conduct (well-designed) CHIs in endemic LMICs, that certain ethical issues warrant particularly careful consideration, and that ethical analyses of endemic LMIC CHIs can inform current debates in research ethics more broadly.     

FURTHERING INJUSTICES AGAINST WOMEN: GENETIC INFORMATION, MORAL OBLIGATIONS, AND GENDER

The purpose of this paper is to show that a decontextualized approach to ethical issues is not just unhelpful for the decision making process of real, situated human beings, but dangerous. This is so, because by neglecting the context in which people make moral decisions we run the risk of reinforcing or furthering injustices against already disadvantaged groups. To show this, I evaluate three moral obligations that our ability to obtain genetic information has made salient: the duty to obtain genetic information about ourselves, the obligation to inform family members about genetic risks and the duty not to reproduce when we know that there is a high risk of transmitting a serious disease or defect. I will argue here that in ignoring the context in which these moral obligations are put into practice, and in particular the situation of women in our society, those who defend these moral duties might be furthering injustices against women.     

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.     

WHAT SHOULD RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS UNDERSTAND TO UNDERSTAND THEY ARE PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH?

To give valid informed consent to participate in clinical research, potential participants should understand the risks, potential benefits, procedures, and alternatives. Potential participants also should understand that they are being invited to participate in research. Yet it is unclear what potential participants need to understand to satisfy this particular requirement. As a result, it is unclear what additional information investigators should disclose about the research; and it is also unclear when failures of understanding in this respect undermine the validity of potential participants' informed consent. An analysis of individuals' interests suggests that potential participants need to understand three additional facts to understand that they are being invited to participate in research: 1) research contribution : those who enroll in the study will be contributing to a project designed to gather generalizable knowledge to benefit others in the future; 2) research relationship : the investigators will rely on participants' efforts to gather the generalizable knowledge to benefit others; and 3) research impact : the extent to which participating in the study will alter what participants do and what happens to them.     

PROCESS FOR OBTAINING INFORMED CONSENT: WOMEN’S OPINIONS

In Brazil, every study involving human beings is required to produce an informed consent form that must be signed by study participants: this is stated in Resolution 196/96. 1 Consent must be obtained through a specific structured process. Objective: To present the opinions of women regarding how the process of obtaining informed consent should be conducted when women are invited to participate in studies on contraceptive methods. Subjects and Methods: Eight focus groups were conducted, involving a total of 51 women living in the metropolitan region of Campinas. The women involved in the study were either participating in a clinical trial in the area of women’s health or had participated in such a trial in the previous 12 months. A thematic guide was used to conduct the focus group discussions; the discussions were recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis performed. Results: In general, the person who invites a woman to participate in a study should be a member of the research team but not the principal investigator. Information relating to the study should be given orally and in writing, both individually and in the group setting. Study volunteers should be informed about, among other things, the risks, possible side effects and discomforts, including long‐term effects. The use of audiovisual aids to provide information was suggested. Conclusion: The process for obtaining informed consent was seen as a means of establishing a relationship between the volunteers and the investigator/research team. The information that the study participants expected to be given coincides with the requirements established under Resolution 196/96. The use of audiovisual aids would improve understanding of the information provided.     

ETHICAL ISSUES IN FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH ON MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS

This paper analyses ethical issues in forensic psychiatric research on mentally disordered offenders, especially those detained in the psychiatric treatment system. The idea of a 'dual role' dilemma afflicting forensic psychiatry is more complicated than acknowledged. Our suggestion acknowledges the good of criminal law and crime prevention as a part that should be balanced against familiar research ethical considerations. Research aiming at improvements of criminal justice and treatment is a societal priority, and the total benefit of studies has to be balanced against the risks for research subjects inferred by almost all systematic studies. Direct substantial risks must be balanced by health benefits, and normal informed consent requirements apply. When direct risks are slight, as in register-based epidemiology, lack of consent may be counter-balanced by special measures to protect integrity and the general benefit of better understanding of susceptibility, treatment and prevention. Special requirements on consent procedures in the forensic psychiatric context are suggested, and the issue of the relation between decision competence and legal accountability is found to be in need of further study. The major ethical hazard in forensic psychiatric research connects to the role of researchers as assessors and consultants in a society entertaining strong prejudices against mentally disordered offenders.     

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.     

COMMENTARY: SCIENCE SCANDAL OR ETHICS SCANDAL? OLIVIERI REDUX

Dr. Nancy Olivieri has become an icon of research integrity for her insistence on publishing adverse data about a drug she was investigating. She has been celebrated world-wide as a hero of biomedical ethics for her bravery in disclosing potential dangers to research subjects, in the face of both drug company threats and coercive pressures from her hospital and university. Like so many other 'whistle-blowers' however, she now faces both personal vilification and disturbing accusations of scientific error. The case against Olivieri is assessed and found to be baseless.     

Moral agency,moral worth and the question of double standards in medical research in developing countries

International regulations governing medical research, healthcare and medical practice, are, obviously, meant to be guidelines and not detailed procedural rules of thumb that can be applied unreflectively without any danger of doing moral wrong. Moreover, such regulations are meant to apply internationally, and no set of straight-jacketed rules of thumb can conceivably apply to all societies and communities of the world, extremely diverse and differently situated as they are. The mark of a good international guideline or regulation, in my view, is that it should provide a clear principle of action that applies equally to all global communities and societies without seeking to foist the particular or momentary moral dilemmas, quandaries, obsessions and preoccupations of some on all. In this paper, I propose to argue that, because moral obligations are obligations only from the point of view of a particular moral agent, we should avoid making the peculiar problems of any particular moral agent(s) the obsessive concern of all moral agents, and that we need, in particular, to make appropriate distinctions between the ethics of developed world research in the developing world, collaborative or cooperative research between the developed and developing worlds, developed world research in the developed world and developing world research in the developing world. A consequence of looking at things this way is that, while it should be clear that there are ethical concerns, imperatives and obligations at all levels, different standards may and, in fact, cannot but be applied in different contexts at different levels, without resorting to the use of double standards, which can never be morally justified. Finally, I venture to propose a formula for a solemn pledge of moral integrity and noble intent, from the perspective of the agent, that is to say, the investigator, sponsor and funder of any research, to complement and balance the widely accepted informed consent requirement, from the perspective of the patient, the subject of any biomedical research.     

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.     

Sharing the Knowledge: Sharing Aggregate Genomic Findings with Research Participants in Developing Countries

Returning research results to participants is recognised as an obligation that researchers should always try to fulfil. But can we ascribe the same obligation to researchers who conduct genomics research producing only aggregated findings? And what about genomics research conducted in developing countries? This paper considers Beskow's et al. argument that aggregated findings should also be returned to research participants. This recommendation is examined in the context of genomics research conducted in developing countries. The risks and benefits of attempting such an exercise are identified, and suggestions on ways to avoid some of the challenges are proposed. I argue that disseminating the findings of genomic research to participating communities should be seen as sharing knowledge rather than returning results. Calling the dissemination of aggregate, population level information returning results can be confusing and misleading as participants might expect to receive individual level information. Talking about sharing knowledge is a more appropriate way of expressing and communicating the outcome of population genomic research. Considering the knowledge produced by genomics research a worthwhile output that should be shared with the participants and approaching the exercise as a ‘sharing of knowledge’, could help mitigate the risks of unrealistic expectations and misunderstanding of findings, whilst promoting trusting and long lasting relationships with the participating communities.     

生物医学工程的精要、责任和展望

作为工程学的直属分支,建立生物医学工程学科的主要目的不是为了开辟一个新的科学研究领域,而是为了借助工程学的方法来解决生物医学领域所面临的实际问题,以及借助工程师们所接受的专业训练、所拥有的专业知识、所具备的工作技巧来提高医疗服务的质量和效果。工程学与生物医学的结合已取得了一些具有里程碑性质的成果。在中低收入国家,例如中国,生物医学工程有责任保证合理使用专业技术,为低廉、可靠、有效的医疗服务提供支持。本文将根据可预见和不可预见的学科发展限制和困难,对学科发展的现实目标和责任进行严肃、冷静地讨论。     

Ethical Issues in Limb Transplants

On one view, limb transplants cross technological frontiers but not ethical ones; the only issues to be resolved concern professional competence, under the assumption of patient autonomy. Given that the benefits of limb transplant do not outweigh the risks, however, the autonomy and rationality of the patient are not necessarily self-evident. In addition to questions of resource allocation and informed consent, limb, and particularly hand, allograft also raises important issues of personal identity and bodily integrity. We present two linked schemas for exploring ethical issues in limb transplants. The first, relying on conventional concepts in biomedical ethics, asks whether the procedure is research or therapy, whether the costs outweigh the benefits, and whether it should be up to the patient to decide. The second introduces more speculative and theoretically challenging questions, including bodily integrity, the argument from unnaturalness, and the function of the hand in expressing personal identity and intimacy. We conclude that limb transplants are not ruled out a priori , unlike some procedures that are prima facie wrong to perform, such as amputation of healthy limbs to relieve body dysmorphic disorders. However, their legitimacy is not proven by appeals to the interests of scientific research, cost-benefit, or patient autonomy.     

Doctors' rights and patients' obligations

Marshall examines arguments for and against physicians breaching their duty of confidentiality to persons diagnosed with HIV or AIDS by notifying third parties such as sexual partners or general practitioners who give care unrelated to HIV or AIDS. The arguments presuppose that the confidentiality right is not absolute, but may give way under certain circumstances. A physician's obligations to the larger community, for instance, may outweigh the obligation to keep a diagnosis of AIDS or HIV confidential. Marshall also argues that physicians who incur risks by treating patients with AIDS or HIV have a right to knowledge that will help them protect themselves. A patient with AIDS or HIV may be obliged to reveal this fact to physicians when seeking care for other health problems, or to allow the diagnosing physican to do so. These arguments may have implications for the debate over testing patients for AIDS or HIV without consent.     

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.     

Experiments and rights

William Fletcher's 1905-1906 beriberi experiment with residents of the Kuala Lumpur Lunatic Asylum is the focus of Vollrath's essay on the moral obligations of the scientist. If an experiment harms some subjects (several of Fletcher's patients died), is the scientific integrity of the research consistent with the scientist's moral obligations to those subjects? Do the subjects have the moral right not to be harmed? What are the subjects' moral rights in this context? The author argues that, aside from the issue of using nonconsenting institutionalized subjects, Fletcher's experiment did not violate a moral right of the subjects; moral right is determined prospectively by anticipating risks, not retrospectively by calculating known harms.     

Informing participants of allocation to placebo at trial closure: postal survey

ObjectivesTo assess whether and how investigators of placebo controlled randomised trials inform participants of their treatment allocation at trial closure and to assess barriers to feedback.DesignPostal survey with a semistructured questionnaire.ParticipantsAll investigators who published a placebo controlled randomised trial in 2000 in five leading medical journals, and a random sample of 120 trials listed in the national research register database.Results45% of investigators informed either all or most participants of their treatment allocation, and 55% did not inform any participant or only informed those who asked. The main reasons for not informing participants were that the investigators never considered this option (40%) or to avoid biasing results at study follow up (24%).ConclusionFurther research is required to examine sensitive ways to communicate treatment information to trial participants.

What is already known on this topic

Information is poor on the nature, extent, and effect of informing participants of placebo controlled randomised trials about their treatment allocation at trial closureLess than 50% of participants receiving placebo are informed about their treatment allocation

What this study adds

No standard procedure is available for informing patients of their treatment arm or of study results at the end of a trialEffective and sensitive ways of communicating treatment allocation to participants are required, as is information on the effects on placebo responders     

Infants,Children, and Informed Consent

Obtaining informed consent for non-therapeutic experimentation on infants and children has ethical and legal implications that cause great controversy. There is some danger that worthy research will be inhibited if current ethical codes are interpreted too strictly, yet infants, children, and other vulnerable groups clearly must be protected from exploitation as research subjects. It is suggested that permission from parents coupled with integrity of the investigator will remain the child''s best protection, but several additional protective mechanisms are available and should be used. Some guidelines for non-therapeutic research are suggested which should not only provide adequate protection for infants and young children involved in research projects, but allow investigators reasonable freedom to prosecute worthy research vital to continued improvements in child care.