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.     

Bioethics, vulnerability, and protection

What makes individuals, groups, or even entire countries vulnerable? And why is vulnerability a concern in bioethics? A simple answer to both questions is that vulnerable individuals and groups are subject to exploitation, and exploitation is morally wrong. This analysis is limited to two areas. First is the context of multinational research, in which vulnerable people can be exploited even if they are not harmed, and harmed even if they are not exploited. The type of multinational research likely to raise the most ethical concerns is that in which the investigators or sponsors are from a powerful industrialised country or a giant pharmaceutical company and the research is conducted in a developing country. Second is the situation of women, who are made vulnerable in cultural settings or in entire countries in which they are oppressed and powerless. In the face of cultural values and practices, or governmental policies, these women suffer serious consequences for their health and even lives. Examples are provided, and it is suggested that in some cases vulnerable individuals can be harmed but not exploited. On the positive side, recent developments reveal a new awareness of exploitation and efforts to enhance the ability of developing countries to protect themselves and their citizens from exploitation at the hands of powerful sponsors of research. In addition, human rights principles are increasingly being used to monitor the actions (or inaction) of governments regarding women's reproductive rights and vulnerability with respect to HIV/AIDS, and to take remedial actions.     

Researchers' ethical concerns regarding habituating wild-nonhuman primates and perceived ethical duties to their subjects: Results of an online survey

While the process of habituation is essential for researchers to observe primates in their natural habitats, ethical dilemmas may arise from its consequences. We collected data from 286 participants via an online survey to investigate: (a) how primatologists perceive their ethical duties toward their subjects; (b) the extent to which primatologists are concerned about the potential ethical consequences of habituation; and (c) the methods primatologists use to reduce potential harms caused by habituation. Overall, primatologists felt an extremely strong duty to mitigate harms that they may cause (e.g., to not stress individuals during observation, treat injuries, and reunite separated individuals) and expressed very high concern for habituation's potential to increase the vulnerability of their subjects to poaching and disease transfer. Ratings for those items were so high that they could not be included in subsequent exploratory factor analyses that were designed to reveal constructs underlying respondents’ ratings of their ethical duties and concerns. Factor analysis of ratings of ethical duties revealed that primatologists reported a strong duty to mitigate harms caused by other humans and a lower perceived duty to mitigate naturally occurring harmful events. Factor analysis on ethical concern ratings revealed that respondents were concerned about harms during the habituation process, the presence of unhabituated behavior after habituation had been established, and indirect harms of habituation. Concerns for unhabituated behavior and indirect harms were rated slightly higher than concern for harms during the habituation process. To mitigate potential harms, primatologists primarily reported engaging in strategies to reduce stress in their subjects. Our findings reveal a disconnect between primatologists' ratings of their ethical concerns and their reported mitigation practices that may, in part, stem from gaps in knowledge about the true impacts of habituation. We suggest areas of discussion and research in the field necessary to address those gaps.     

REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Are there any ethical concerns about reproductive technologies that are specific or unique to developing countries? Three ethical concerns often mentioned specifically in regard to developing countries are (1), the “overpopulation argument”; (2) the limited resources argument; and (3) the ethical problem of poorly trained practitioners offering their services to unsuspecting and uninformed infertile individuals or couples. Each argument is explored in some detail, with the conclusion that ethical problems do, in fact, exist but are not unique to developing countries. Nevertheless, the difficulties relating to reproductive technologies are likely to be greater in developing countries than in developed ones because of limited resources and a larger number of poor people residing there.     

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.     

Reproductive technologies in developing countries

Are there any ethical concerns about reproductive technologies that are specific or unique to developing countries? Three ethical concerns often mentioned specifically in regard to developing countries are (1), the "overpopulation argument"; (2) the limited resources argument; and (3) the ethical problem of poorly trained practitioners offering their services to unsuspecting and uninformed infertile individuals or couples. Each argument is explored in some detail, with the conclusion that ethical problems do, in fact, exist but are not unique to developing countries. Nevertheless, the difficulties relating to reproductive technologies are likely to be greater in developing countries than in developed ones because of limited resources and a larger number of poor people residing there.     

THE ETHICS OF UTERUS TRANSPLANTATION

Human uterus transplantation (UTx) is currently under investigation as a treatment for uterine infertility. Without a uterus transplant, the options available to women with uterine infertility are adoption or surrogacy; only the latter has the potential for a genetically related child. UTx will offer recipients the chance of having their own pregnancy. This procedure occurs at the intersection of two ethically contentious areas: assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and organ transplantation. In relation to organ transplantation, UTx lies with composite tissue transplants such as face and limb grafts, and shares some of the ethical concerns raised by these non‐life saving procedures. In relation to ART, UTx represents one more avenue by which a woman may seek to meet her reproductive goals, and as with other ART procedures, raises questions about the limits of reproductive autonomy. This paper explores the ethical issues raised by UTx with a focus on the potential gap between women's desires and aspirations about pregnancy and the likely functional outcomes of successful UTx.     

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.     

VULNERABILITY IN RESEARCH AND HEALTH CARE; DESCRIBING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM?

Despite broad agreement that the vulnerable have a claim to special protection, defining vulnerable persons or populations has proved more difficult than we would like. This is a theoretical as well as a practical problem, as it hinders both convincing justifications for this claim and the practical application of required protections. In this paper, I review consent-based, harm-based, and comprehensive definitions of vulnerability in healthcare and research with human subjects. Although current definitions are subject to critique, their underlying assumptions may be complementary. I propose that we should define vulnerability in research and healthcare as an identifiably increased likelihood of incurring additional or greater wrong. In order to identify the vulnerable, as well as the type of protection that they need, this definition requires that we start from the sorts of wrongs likely to occur and from identifiable increments in the likelihood, or to the likely degree, that these wrongs will occur. It is limited but appropriately so, as it only applies to special protection, not to any protection to which we have a valid claim. Using this definition would clarify that the normative force of claims for special protection does not rest with vulnerability itself, but with pre-existing claims when these are more likely to be denied. Such a clarification could help those who carry responsibility for the protection of vulnerable populations, such as Institutional Review Boards, to define the sort of protection required in a more targeted and effective manner.     

Using fuzzy logic to determine the vulnerability of marine species to climate change

Marine species are being impacted by climate change and ocean acidification, although their level of vulnerability varies due to differences in species' sensitivity, adaptive capacity and exposure to climate hazards. Due to limited data on the biological and ecological attributes of many marine species, as well as inherent uncertainties in the assessment process, climate change vulnerability assessments in the marine environment frequently focus on a limited number of taxa or geographic ranges. As climate change is already impacting marine biodiversity and fisheries, there is an urgent need to expand vulnerability assessment to cover a large number of species and areas. Here, we develop a modelling approach to synthesize data on species‐specific estimates of exposure, and ecological and biological traits to undertake an assessment of vulnerability (sensitivity and adaptive capacity) and risk of impacts (combining exposure to hazards and vulnerability) of climate change (including ocean acidification) for global marine fishes and invertebrates. We use a fuzzy logic approach to accommodate the variability in data availability and uncertainties associated with inferring vulnerability levels from climate projections and species' traits. Applying the approach to estimate the relative vulnerability and risk of impacts of climate change in 1074 exploited marine species globally, we estimated their index of vulnerability and risk of impacts to be on average 52 ± 19 SD and 66 ± 11 SD, scaling from 1 to 100, with 100 being the most vulnerable and highest risk, respectively, under the ‘business‐as‐usual' greenhouse gas emission scenario (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5). We identified 157 species to be highly vulnerable while 294 species are identified as being at high risk of impacts. Species that are most vulnerable tend to be large‐bodied endemic species. This study suggests that the fuzzy logic framework can help estimate climate vulnerabilities and risks of exploited marine species using publicly and readily available information.     

Vulnerability of European freshwater catchments to climate change

Climate change is expected to exacerbate the current threats to freshwater ecosystems, yet multifaceted studies on the potential impacts of climate change on freshwater biodiversity at scales that inform management planning are lacking. The aim of this study was to fill this void through the development of a novel framework for assessing climate change vulnerability tailored to freshwater ecosystems. The three dimensions of climate change vulnerability are as follows: (i) exposure to climate change, (ii) sensitivity to altered environmental conditions and (iii) resilience potential. Our vulnerability framework includes 1685 freshwater species of plants, fishes, molluscs, odonates, amphibians, crayfish and turtles alongside key features within and between catchments, such as topography and connectivity. Several methodologies were used to combine these dimensions across a variety of future climate change models and scenarios. The resulting indices were overlaid to assess the vulnerability of European freshwater ecosystems at the catchment scale (18 783 catchments). The Balkan Lakes Ohrid and Prespa and Mediterranean islands emerge as most vulnerable to climate change. For the 2030s, we showed a consensus among the applied methods whereby up to 573 lake and river catchments are highly vulnerable to climate change. The anthropogenic disruption of hydrological habitat connectivity by dams is the major factor reducing climate change resilience. A gap analysis demonstrated that the current European protected area network covers <25% of the most vulnerable catchments. Practical steps need to be taken to ensure the persistence of freshwater biodiversity under climate change. Priority should be placed on enhancing stakeholder cooperation at the major basin scale towards preventing further degradation of freshwater ecosystems and maintaining connectivity among catchments. The catchments identified as most vulnerable to climate change provide preliminary targets for development of climate change conservation management and mitigation strategies.     

Getting personal: ethics and identity in global health research

'Researcher identity' affects global health research in profound and complex ways. Anthropologists in particular have led the way in portraying the multiple, and sometimes tension-generating, identities that researchers ascribe to themselves, or have ascribed to them, in their places of research. However, the central importance of researcher identity in the ethical conduct of global health research has yet to be fully appreciated. The capacity of researchers to respond effectively to the ethical tensions surrounding their identities is hampered by lack of conceptual clarity, as to the nature and scope of the issues involved. This paper strives to provide some clarification of these ethical tensions by considering researcher identity from the perspective of (1) Guillemin and Heggen's (2009) key distinction between procedural ethics and ethics in practice, and (2) our own distinction between perceptions of identity that are either symmetrical or asymmetrical, with the potential to shift research relationships toward greater or lesser ethical harmony. Discussion of these concepts is supported with ethnographic examples from relevant literature and from our own (United States (US) Government-funded) research in South Africa. A preliminary set of recommendations is provided in an effort to equip researchers with a greater sense of organization and control over the ethics of researcher identity. The paper concludes that the complex construction of researcher identity needs to be central among the ethical concerns of global health researchers, and that the conceptual tools discussed in the paper are a useful starting point for better organizing and acting on these ethical concerns.     

Looking back, looking beyond: revisiting the ethics of genome generation

This paper will explore some of the ethical imperatives that have shaped strategic and policy frameworks for the use of new genetic technologies and how these play a role in shaping the nature of research and changing attitudes; with an attempt to conceptualize some theories of genetic determinism. I analyse why there is a need to put bioethical principles within a theoretical framework in the context of new technologies, and how, by doing so, their practical applications for agriculture, environment medicine and health care can be legitimized. There are several theories in favour of and against the use of genetic technologies that focus on genes and their role in our existence. In particular the theory of geneticisation is commonly debated. It highlights the conflicting interests of science, society and industry in harnessing genetic knowledge when the use of such knowledge could challenge ethical principles. Critics call it a ‘reductionist’ approach, based on arguments that are narrowed down to genes, often ignoring other factors including biological, social and moral ones. A parallel theory is that there is something special about genes, and it is this “genetic exceptionalism” that creates hopes and myths. Either way, the challenging task is to develop a common ground for understanding the importance of ethical sensitivities. As research agendas become more complex, ethical paradigms will need to be more influential. New principles are needed to answer the complexities of ethical issues as complex technologies develop. This paper reflects on global ethical principles and the tensions between ethical principles in legitimizing genetic technologies at the social and governance level.     

Module three: vulnerable/special participant populations

ABSTRACT This module is designed to sensitise you to the special needs of participants who belong to populations that are more vulnerable than other participant populations. These populations typically include incompetent persons women who may or may not be pregnant, children, prisoners and refugees, impoverished people, and ethnic minorities. These and similar groups deserve special consideration for a number of important ethical and historical reasons, specifically those that surround the potential for exploitation, problems with informed consent, and concerns about respect for participant autonomy. This module introduces modus operandi that are based on national and international research guidelines for dealing with vulnerable/special participant populations, offering contextually-dependent advice and relevant ethical considerations/arguments for and against their involvement in scientific research endeavours.     

Fostering caring relationships: Suggestions to rethink liberal perspectives on the ethics of newborn screening

Newborn screening (NBS) involves the collection of blood from the heel of a newborn baby and testing it for a list of rare and inheritable disorders. New biochemical screening technologies led to expansions of NBS programs in the first decade of the 21st century. It is expected that they will in time be replaced by genetic sequencing technologies. These developments have raised a lot of ethical debate. We reviewed the ethical literature on NBS, analyzed the issues and values that emerged, and paid particular interest to the type of impacts authors think NBS should have on the lives of children and their families. Our review shows that most authors keep their ethical reflection confined to policy decisions, about for instance (a) the purpose of the program, and (b) its voluntary or mandatory nature. While some authors show appreciation of how NBS information empowers parents to care for their (diseased) children, most authors consider these aspects to be ‘private’ and leave their evaluation up to parents themselves. While this division of moral labor fits with the liberal conviction to leave individuals free to decide how they want to live their private lives, it also silences the ethical debate about these issues. Given the present and future capacity of NBS to offer an abundance of health‐related information, we argue that there is good reason to develop a more substantive perspective to whether and how NBS can contribute to parents’ good care for children.     

The biological roots of morality

The question whether ethical behavior is biologically determined may refer either to thecapacity for ethics (e.i., the proclivity to judge human actions as either right or wrong), or to the moralnorms accepted by human beings for guiding their actions. My theses are: (1) that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature; and (2) that moral norms are products of cultural evolution, not of biological evolution.Humans exhibits ethical behavior by nature because their biological makeup determines the presence of the three necessary, and jointly sufficient, conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgements; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action. Ethical behavior came about in evolution not because it is adaptive in itself, but as a necessary consequece of man's eminent intellectual abilities, which are an attribute directly promoted by natural selection.Since Darwin's time there have been evolutionists proposing that the norms of morality are derived from biological evolution. Sociobiologists represent the most recent and most subtle version of that proposal. The sociobiologists' argument is that human ethical norms are sociocultural correlates of behaviors fostered by biological evolution. I argue that such proposals are misguided and do not escape the naturalistic fallacy. The isomorphism between the behaviors promoted by natural selection and those sanctioned by moral norms exist only with respect to the consequences of the behaviors; the underlying causations are completely disparate.This article is based on a paper presented at the International Symposium onBiological Models of Human Action, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 16–18 December 1985.     

Research in the ranks: vulnerable subjects, coercible collaboration, and the hepatitis E vaccine trial in Nepal

Concern over the diminished autonomy of members of the armed forces has resulted in the classification of these groups as "vulnerable" in many international codes of research ethics, a designation that places the onus on researchers to provide special justification for the inclusion of these persons in research. This paper examines the application of these ethical requirements to a recent trial carried out by U.S. Army researchers among soldiers of the Royal Nepal Army (RNA) and concludes that the requirements to justify conducting research in this population were not met. Furthermore, noting the human rights abuses rampant in the RNA, it is appropriate to question the choice of this institution as both a partner and a subject pool for U.S. state-sponsored research. This case study raises another important ethical question about the vulnerability to coerced collaboration of groups or institutions. In response, I propose the idea of "institutional vulnerability" as an extension of the idea of individual "juridic vulnerability." The recent military and financial assistance that the RNA received from the U.S. Army, in light of their partnership in this biomedical research trial, constitutes an appropriate and revealing context in which to ground this discussion.     

Fleshing Out Vulnerability

In the literature on medical ethics, it is generally admitted that vulnerable persons or groups deserve special attention, care or protection. One can define vulnerable persons as those having a greater likelihood of being wronged – that is, of being denied adequate satisfaction of certain legitimate claims. The conjunction of these two points entails what we call the Special Protection Thesis. It asserts that persons with a greater likelihood of being denied adequate satisfaction of their legitimate claims deserve special attention, care or protection. Such a thesis remains vague, however, as long as we do not know what legitimate claims are. This article aims at dispelling this vagueness by exploring what claims we have in relation to health care – thus fleshing out a claim‐based conception of vulnerability. We argue that the Special Protection Thesis must be enriched as follows: If individual or group X has a greater likelihood of being denied adequate satisfaction of some of their legitimate claims to (i) physical integrity, (ii) autonomy, (iii) freedom, (iv) social provision, (v) impartial quality of government, (vi) social bases of self‐respect or (vii) communal belonging, then X deserves special attention, care or protection. With this improved understanding of vulnerability, vulnerability talk in healthcare ethics can escape vagueness and serve as an adequate basis for practice.