Ethical analysis of cadaver supply and usage processes for research within the scope of the Helsinki Declaration

Recent technological developments have considerably transformed the supply, storage, and transportation processes of cadavers, creating new and previously unforeseen ethical challenges regarding cadaver usage. In this study, we analyzed two aspects of the cadaver processing system—cadaver supply and its use in research. Thereafter, we highlighted the major ethical concerns underlying these stages and correlated our search results with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (DoH), or Helsinki Declaration. To ensure the reliability and continuity of medical progress, human—especially cadaver—research depends on the ethical priorities as outlined in the DoH: respect for autonomy, privacy/confidentiality, risks/burdens/benefits, and the protection of vulnerable groups. According to our ethics analysis, which also corresponds with the ethics guidelines of the Consensus Panel on Research with the Recently Dead, the most ignored values were respect for autonomy and privacy/confidentiality issues. Based on these ethical concerns, we provide recommendations to address these challenges in anatomy research.     

Ethical Research Issues: Going Beyond the Declaration of Helsinki

La Vaque and Rossiter made a strong, supported argument that it is unethical to use a no treatment control group in a research study if a known, effective treatment is available. Their argument is based on the supposition that the Declaration of Helsinki is the ethical world standard for research with humans. Their argument appears to be straightforward, but is not simple to apply. The issues are very complex, include issues not discussed in their argument, and can lead to a different conclusion as pointed out in this paper. The World Medical Association developed the Declaration of Helsinki as one of their official policies. The Declaration of Helsinki, however, is not accepted as the world ethical standard, as demonstrated by its lack of adoption by many professional associations or even by the United States Federal Government. Perhaps it is not mentioned because its ethical provisions are aspirational rather than mandatory as implied by La Vaque and Rossiter. Researchers and clinicians should also be aware of other ethical issues not directly discussed in the La Vaque and Rossiter paper. The Belmont Report is the basis for the ethical protection of human research subjects for at least 17 federal agencies and does not mention the Declaration of Helsinki. The Belmont Report mentions several ethical principles that form the basis for informed consent, risk/benefit assessment, confidentiality of data, subject selection, Institutional Review Boards, and other protections needed when doing research with human subjects. At least 2 of these core principles have direct implications to the discussion related to the use of placebo controls. The ethical principle of fidelity is also important in guiding research activities with human subjects. Researchers should be familiar with the La Vaque and Rossiter argument, the Belmont Report, and the federal policies developed to implement the provisions of that report, for example, Regulation 45 CFR 46.     

Political legitimacy and research ethics

In democratic theory, “legitimacy” refers to the set of conditions that must be in place in order for the claims to authority of somebody to be deemed appropriate, and for their claims to compliance to be warranted. Though criteria of legitimacy have been elaborated in the context of democratic states, there is no reason for them not to be drawn up, with appropriate amendments, for other kinds of authority structures. This paper examines the claims to authority made over researchers by international bodies governing research ethics, who exercise their authority by the research ethics guidelines they produce (including recent revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki and CIOMS Guidelines). We argue that discussions of such bodies and sets of guidelines often elide questions of justification and questions of legitimacy, and that the grounds that might allow us to mount a strong case for the latter are at present sorely underdeveloped.     

The Ethical Use of Placebo Controls in Clinical Research: The Declaration of Helsinki

Medical ethicists have questioned the use of no-treatment (placebo and sham procedure) controlled studies of new therapies when safe and effective standard therapies are available for use as an active or equivalence control. Current ethical principles of conduct for biomedical research specifically prohibit designs that withhold or deny the best proven diagnostic and therapeutic treatment to any participant in a clinical study, including those individuals who consent to randomization into a control group. Studies of psychophysiological therapies are often criticized on the grounds they lack a placebo or sham treatment control group. This paper briefly reviews the history of the problem and discusses the ethical standards that govern human research as derived from the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki. An examination of the problem with regard to research involving EEG biofeedback therapy for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Traumatic Brain Injury, and depression serves to highlight the issues. It is concluded that the active treatment control (treatment equivalence) design is most appropriate for those clinical studies examining disorders for which there is a known, effective treatment. Sham- or placebo-controlled studies are ethically acceptable for those disorders for which no effective treatment is 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.     

GOING FROM PRINCIPLES TO RULES IN RESEARCH ETHICS

In research ethics there is a canon regarding what ethical rules ought to be followed by investigators vis‐à‐vis their treatment of subjects and a canon regarding what fundamental ethical principles apply to the endeavor. What I aim to demonstrate here is that several of the rules find no support in the principles. This leaves anyone who would insist that we not abandon those rules in the difficult position of needing to establish that we are nevertheless justified in believing in the validity of the rules. I conclude by arguing that this is not likely to be accomplished. The rules I call into question are the rules requiring:

• – that studies be designed in a scientifically valid way
• – that risks to subjects be minimized
• – that subjects be afforded post‐trial access to experimental interventions
• – that inducements paid to subjects not be counted as a benefit to them
• – that inducements paid to subjects not be ‘undue’
• – that subjects must remain free to withdraw from the study at any time for any reason without penalty

Both canons, the canon on principles and the canon on rules, are found in the overlap among ethical pronouncements that are themselves canonical: the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, CIOMS's International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, and NBAC's 2001 report, Ethical Issues in International Research: Clinical Trials in Developing Countries.     

Anti-abortion strategizing and the afterlife of the Geneva Consensus Declaration

The Geneva Consensus Declaration, introduced by the Trump-Pence administration in 2020 and signed by thirty-two countries, claims that there is no international right to abortion. Although the Declaration was subsequently repudiated by the Biden administration, it did not die. This paper traces the afterlife of the Geneva Consensus Declaration as part of an ongoing antiabortion strategy to form a global coalition. Its supporters hope to mobilize signing nations to remove sexual and reproductive rights from the agendas of multilateral agencies including the United Nations and Organization of American States. The Geneva Consensus Declaration puts antiabortion politics above all other considerations, creating common cause among governments that oppose reproductive and sexual rights by undermining multilateral governance.     

Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials: A Critique of the ICH‐GCP Guideline

This article examines issues relating to ethics decision‐making in clinical trials. The overriding concern is to ensure that the well being and the interests of human subjects are adequately safeguarded. In this respect, this article will embark on a critical analysis of the ICH‐GCP Guideline. The purpose of such an undertaking is to highlight areas of concern and the shortcomings of the existing ICH‐GCP Guideline. Particular emphasis is made on how ethics committees perform their duties and responsibilities in line with the principles outlined in the ICH‐GCP Guideline. This article will draw attention to the need for a new approach to addressing the weaknesses of the ICH‐GCP Guideline in its present form.     

Not Fit for Purpose: The Ethical Guidelines of the Indian Council of Medical Research

In 2006, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) published its ‘Ethical guidelines for Biomedical Research on human participants’. The intention was to translate international ethical standards into locally and culturally appropriate norms and values to help biomedical researchers in India to conduct ethical research and thereby safeguard the interest of human subjects. Unfortunately, it is apparent that the guideline is not fit for purpose. In addition to problems with the structure and clarity of the guidelines, there are several serious omissions and contradictions in the recommendations. In this paper, we take a close look at the two key chapters and highlight some of the striking flaws in this important document. We conclude that ethics committees and national authorities should not lose sight of international ethical standards while incorporating local reality and cultural and social values, as focusing too much on the local context could compromise the safety of human subjects in biomedical research, particularly in India.     

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.     

International,interdisciplinary research in ecology: Some problems of organization and execution. The case of the man and the biosphere (MAB) programme

Ecological problems — because they involve interactions and interfaces — require for their solution a flexible, interdisciplinary approach. Ecological research can best be supported in an international, intergovernmental framework, but, at first sight, the requirements of such a framework may seem unwieldy to traditionally trained natural and social scientists. Experience acquired in implementing UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme indicates that it is possible to overcome the difficulties of conducting integrated research and to achieve internationally comparable results. The MAB Programme is a good example of both the potential and the limitations of integrated, international ecological research programs. There seem to be three imperatives for success: (1) research must be problem oriented, (2) the. unit selected for study must be sufficiently comprehensive and based on human use systems, and (3) research workers in various natural and social science disciplines and the administrative decision-makers must share responsibility for planning and execution.     

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.     

Improving the Quality of Host Country Ethical Oversight of International Research: The Use of a Collaborative ‘Pre‐Review’ Mechanism for a Study of Fexinidazole for Human African Trypanosomiasis

Developing countries face numerous barriers to conducting effective and efficient ethics reviews of international collaborative research. In addition to potentially overlooking important scientific and ethical considerations, inadequate or insufficiently trained ethics committees may insist on unwarranted changes to protocols that can impair a study's scientific or ethical validity. Moreover, poorly functioning review systems can impose substantial delays on the commencement of research, which needlessly undermine the development of new interventions for urgent medical needs. In response to these concerns, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi), an independent nonprofit organization founded by a coalition of public sector and international organizations, developed a mechanism to facilitate more effective and efficient host country ethics review for a study of the use of fexinidazole for the treatment of late stage African Trypanosomiasis (HAT). The project involved the implementation of a novel ‘pre‐review’ process of ethical oversight, conducted by an ad hoc committee of ethics committee representatives from African and European countries, in collaboration with internationally recognized scientific experts. This article examines the process and outcomes of this collaborative process.     

Promoting Research Integrity in Africa: An African Voice of Concern on Research Misconduct and the Way Forward

African researchers and their collaborators have been making significant contributions to useful research findings and discoveries in Africa. Despite evidence of scientific misconduct even in heavily regulated research environments, there is little documented information that supports prevalence of research misconduct in Africa. Available literature on research misconduct has focused on the developed world, where credible research integrity systems are already in place. Public attention to research misconduct has lately increased, calling for attention to weaknesses in current research policies and regulatory frameworks. Africa needs policies, structural and governance systems that promote responsible conduct of research. To begin to offset this relative lack of documented evidence of research misconduct, contributors working in various research institutions from nine African countries agreed to share their experiences to highlight problems and explore the need to identify strategies to promote research integrity in the African continent. The experiences shared include anecdotal but reliable accounts of previously undocumented research misconduct, including some ‘normal misbehavior’ of frontline staff in those countries. Two broad approaches to foster greater research integrity are proposed including promotion of institutional and individual capacity building to instil a culture of responsible research conduct in existing and upcoming research scientist and developing deterrent and corrective policies to minimize research misconduct and other questionable research practices. By sharing these experiences and through the strategies proposed, the authors hope to limit the level of research misconduct and promote research integrity in Africa.     

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.