Research participation and the right to withdraw

Most ethics committees which review research protocols insist that potential research participants reserve unconditional or absolute 'right' of withdrawal at any time and without giving any reason. In this paper, I examine what consent means for research participation and a sense of commitment in relation to this right to withdraw. I suggest that, once consent has been given (and here I am excluding incompetent minors and adults), participants should not necessarily have unconditional or absolute rights to withdraw. This does not imply that there should be a complete absence of rights, or, indeed, an abandonment of the right to withdraw. The point of this paper is to show that the supposed unconditional or absolute nature of these rights may be self-defeating and so fail to respect the autonomy of participants. In addition, and on a more positive note, I suggest that, attaching certain conditions on the right to withdraw, may better respect the autonomy of these participants by underlining the idea that autonomy is more than mere whim or indifference to the fate of others. On the contrary, research staff are currently unable to 'push' participants, who may merely have logistical difficulties unrelated to the research itself, but who really want to stay the course, for fear of coercing them. Furthermore, researchers now try to 'screen out' people they think may be unreliable to protect the science of the study and so groups at risk of dropping out may be unfairly denied access to research treatments. I conclude that on-going negotiation between the relevant parties could be on balance the only truly acceptable way forward but concede certain important limitations to take into account.     

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.     

Combining efficiency and concerns about integrity when using human biobanks

In the debate about human bio-sampling the interests of patients and other sample donors are believed to stand against the interests of scientists and of their freedom of research. Scientists want efficient access to and use of human biological samples. Patients and other donors of blood or tissue materials want protection of their integrity. This dichotomy is reflected in the Swedish law on biobanks, which came into effect 1 January 2003. In this article I argue that if the basic interest of scientists using human biological samples is in increasing knowledge and developing better treatments, and if the concept 'integrity' is properly understood, then sample donors should also be interested in promotion of efficiency as well as in the protection of their integrity. The basic premise of this argument is that donors of samples have interests related to the donation and use of samples as well as to the use of the results of the research, that is, new medical products and treatments. They have a role both as donors or participants in research and as end users of the research. I conclude that if (i) access to information acquired through biobank research is strictly limited to researchers, (ii) the information is protected by secrecy safeguards through coding and (iii) the procedures governing the research are open to public and democratic control, then most research using human biobanks may be carried out on the basis of making general information available when collecting biological samples, without further contact with participants.     

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.     

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) Prisons Project Study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification

Many research-funding agencies now require open access to the results of research they have funded, and some also require that researchers make available the raw data generated from that research. Similarly, the journal Trials aims to address inadequate reporting in randomised controlled trials, and in order to fulfil this objective, the journal is working with the scientific and publishing communities to try to establish best practice for publishing raw data from clinical trials in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. Common issues encountered when considering raw data for publication include patient privacy – unless explicit consent for publication is obtained – and ownership, but agreed-upon policies for tackling these concerns do not appear to be addressed in the guidance or mandates currently established. Potential next steps for journal editors and publishers, ethics committees, research-funding agencies, and researchers are proposed, and alternatives to journal publication, such as restricted access repositories, are outlined.     

Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses?

Many randomised controlled trials compare treatments that will produce only moderate differences in outcome, but these differences can be clinically important. However, they are difficult to assess reliably and require a large amount of randomised evidence. This can be achieved through large prospective randomised trials which will accrue future patients, the meta-analysis of results from randomised trials involving patients from the past, or--ideally--both. The techniques require that all possible biases are minimised, and in meta-analyses this can best be achieved by ensuring that all of the randomised evidence--both trials and participants in those trials--is included. The meta-analysis of individual patient data has been described as the gold standard for this approach. It will remove many of the problems associated with relying solely on published data and some of the problems arising from a reliance on aggregate data, and will also add to the analyses that can be performed. Such projects, however, require considerable time and effort.     

HIV-AIDS: ethics in healthcare,research, and access to treatments

Violence and gravity cannot be ignored when considering HIV and AIDS challenges. However, coping with this pandemic disease caused us to build up and experience new ways of solidarity that have transformed our views of medical care and public health. The few achievements of these years throw a new light on the figure of the ill person. They brought new references allowing a different understanding of the political stakes of public health. Partnership or even therapeutic alliance are now a framework to the understanding of respect, solidarity and equity. New viewpoints exist on the health care relationship. Our achievements show at first injustice in the access of treatments at the international level. They make clear our moral responsibilities toward every person that require a treatment. This idea should be emphasized when applied on the most vulnerable communities. The most urgent challenges that remain today are extreme precariousness situations, treatment access conditions, information, and quality of life.     

Restricted randomization designs in clinical trials.

Though therapeutic clinical trials are often categorized as using either "randomization" or "historical controls" as a basis for treatment evaluation, pure random assignment of treatments is rarely employed. Instead various restricted randomization designs are used. The restrictions include the balancing of treatment assignments over time and the stratification of the assignment with regard to covariates that may affect response. Restricted randomization designs for clinical trials differ from those of other experimental areas because patients arrive sequentially and a balanced design cannot be ensured. The major restricted randomization designs and arguments concerning the proper role of stratification are reviewed here. The effect of randomization restrictions on the validity of significance tests is discussed.     

Induced pluripotent stem cells,a giant leap for mankind therapeutic applications

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) technology has propelled the field of stem cells biology, providing new cells to explore the molecular mechanisms of pluripotency, cancer biology and aging. A major advantage of human iPSC, compared to the pluripotent embryonic stem cells, is that they can be generated from virtually any embryonic or adult somatic cell type without destruction of human blastocysts. In addition, iPSC can be generated from somatic cells harvested from normal individuals or patients, and used as a cellular tool to unravel mechanisms of human development and to model diseases in a manner not possible before. Besides these fundamental aspects of human biology and physiology that are revealed using iPSC or iPSC-derived cells, these cells hold an immense potential for cell-based therapies, and for the discovery of new or personalized pharmacological treatments for many disorders. Here, we review some of the current challenges and concerns about iPSC technology. We introduce the potential held by iPSC for research and development of novel health-related applications. We briefly present the efforts made by the scientific and clinical communities to create the necessary guidelines and regulations to achieve the highest quality standards in the procedures for iPSC generation, characterization and long-term preservation. Finally, we present some of the audacious and pioneer clinical trials in progress with iPSC-derived cells.     

The guards themselves

If we agree that, in the present climate of fear of bioterrorism, some restrictions on the conduct and/or publication of certain types of biological research are likely, it is to our advantage to preempt government action by devising for ourselves restrictions that we can live with, then the inevitable question becomes: how should these restrictions be administered?     

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

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

Confidence regions for treatment effects in subgroups in biomarker stratified designs

Subgroup analysis has important applications in the analysis of controlled clinical trials. Sometimes the result of the overall group fails to demonstrate that the new treatment is better than the control therapy, but for a subgroup of patients, the treatment benefit may exist; or sometimes, the new treatment is better for the overall group but not for a subgroup. Hence we are interested in constructing a simultaneous confidence interval for the difference of the treatment effects in a subgroup and the overall group. Subgroups are usually formed on the basis of a predictive biomarker such as age, sex, or some genetic marker. While, for example, age can be detected precisely, it is often only possible to detect the biomarker status with a certain probability. Because patients detected with a positive or negative biomarker may not be truly biomarker positive or negative, responses in the subgroups depend on the treatment therapy as well as on the sensitivity and specificity of the assay used in detecting the biomarkers. In this work, we show how (approximate) simultaneous confidence intervals and confidence ellipsoid for the treatment effects in subgroups can be found for biomarker stratified clinical trials using a normal framework with normally distributed or binary data. We show that these intervals maintain the nominal confidence level via simulations.     

Compensation for cures: Why we should pay a premium for participation in ‘challenge studies’

Antibiotic resistance is one of the most pressing public health problems humanity faces. Research into new classes of antibiotics and new kinds of treatments – including risky experimental treatments such as phage therapy and vaccines – is an important part of improving our ability to treat infectious diseases. In order to aid this research, we will argue that we should permit researchers to pay people any amount of money to compensate for the risks of participating in clinical trials, including ‘challenge studies’ that involve deliberately infecting patients. We think that standard worries about paying for participation in risky research are reducible to concerns that can be addressed with the right screening mechanisms.     

Contrasting principal stratum and hypothetical strategy estimands in multi-period crossover trials with incomplete data

Complete case analyses of complete crossover designs provide an opportunity to make comparisons based on patients who can tolerate all treatments. It is argued that this provides a means of estimating a principal stratum strategy estimand, something which is difficult to do in parallel group trials. While some trial users will consider this a relevant aim, others may be interested in hypothetical strategy estimands, that is, the effect that would be found if all patients completed the trial. Whether these estimands differ importantly is a question of interest to the different users of the trial results. This paper derives the difference between principal stratum strategy and hypothetical strategy estimands, where the former is estimated by a complete-case analysis of the crossover design, and a model for the dropout process is assumed. Complete crossover designs, that is, those where all treatments appear in all sequences, and which compare t treatments over p periods with respect to a continuous outcome are considered. Numerical results are presented for Williams designs with four and six periods. Results from a trial of obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (TOMADO) are also used for illustration. The results demonstrate that the percentage difference between the estimands is modest, exceeding 5% only when the trial has been severely affected by dropouts or if the within-subject correlation is low.     

Observed responses of captive stoats (

Artificial barriers, such as nest boxes and metal collars, are sometimes used, with variable success, to exclude predators and/or competitors from tree nests of vulnerable bird species. This paper describes the observed response of captive stoats (Mustela erminea) to a nest box design and an aluminium sheet collar used to protect kaka (Nestor meridionalis) nest cavities. The nest box, a prototype for kaka, was manufactured from PVC pipe. Initial trials failed to exclude stoats until an overhanging roof was added. All subsequent trials successfully prevented access by stoats. Trials with a 590 mm wide aluminium collar were less successful, but this was mainly due to restrictions enforced by enclosure design: Stoats gained access above the collar via the enclosure walls and ceiling. In only one of twelve trials was a stoat able to climb past the collar itself. The conservation implications of these trials and directions for future research are discussed.     

Returning genetic research results to individuals: points-to-consider

This paper is intended to stimulate debate amongst stakeholders in the international research community on the topic of returning individual genetic research results to study participants. Pharmacogenetics and disease genetics studies are becoming increasingly prevalent, leading to a growing body of information on genetic associations for drug responsiveness and disease susceptibility with the potential to improve health care. Much of these data are presently characterized as exploratory (non-validated or hypothesis-generating). There is, however, a trend for research participants to be permitted access to their personal data if they so choose. Researchers, sponsors, patient advocacy groups, ethics committees and regulatory authorities are consequently confronting the issue of whether, and how, study participants might receive their individual results. Noted international ethico-legal guidelines and public policy positions in Europe and the United States are reviewed for background. The authors offer 'Points-to-Consider' regarding returning results in the context of drug development trials based on their knowledge and experience. Theses considerations include: the clinical relevance of data, laboratory qualifications, informed consent procedures, confidentiality of medical information and the competency of persons providing results to participants. The discussion is framed as a benefit-to-risk assessment to balance the potential positive versus negative consequences to participants, while maintaining the integrity and feasibility of conducting genetic research studies.     

Evaluating interventions in health: a reconciliatory approach

Health-related Quality of Life measures have recently been attacked from two directions, both of which criticize the preference-based method of evaluating health states they typically incorporate. One attack, based on work by Daniel Kahneman and others, argues that 'experience' is a better basis for evaluation. The other, inspired by Amartya Sen, argues that 'capability' should be the guiding concept. In addition, opinion differs as to whether health evaluation measures are best derived from consultations with the general public, with patients, or with health professionals. And there is disagreement about whether these opinions should be solicited individually and aggregated, or derived instead from a process of collective deliberation. These distinctions yield a wide variety of possible approaches, with potentially differing policy implications. We consider some areas of disagreement between some of these approaches. We show that many of the perspectives seem to capture something important, such that it may be a mistake to reject any of them. Instead we suggest that some of the existing 'instruments' designed to measure HR QoLs may in fact successfully already combine these attributes, and with further refinement such instruments may be able to provide a reasonable reconciliation between the perspectives.     

Inappropriate publication of trial results and potential for allegations of illegal share dealing.

There is increasing evidence of fraud in clinical research, and one aspect concerns trading in pharmaceutical company shares by people who may have confidential information about the results of clinical trials. Plainly this has implications for honest investigators, who may find themselves exposed to such allegations. In this paper Dr D S Freestone and Mr H Mitchell, QC, identify three interlinked issues which they think underlie the potential for these allegations. They are pressure for premature or inappropriate communication of research results; trading in pharmaceutical company shares by academic clinical investigators; and the possibility that clinical investigators might succumb to temptation. Dr Freestone and Mr Mitchell suggest that whenever possible results of clinical studies should be published in appropriate medical journals without prior public disclosure. This conflicts with Stock Exchange rules, which require that price sensitive information should be published at the earliest opportunity and preclude priority of publication in medical journals. Freestone and Mitchell believe that rarely rapid public disclosure is acceptable if it is to protect patients'' interests but that it must not prejudice publication in the medical or scientific press. When rapid public disclosure is needed, they say, every attempt should be made to inform prescribers before patients. Dr Freestone and Mr Mitchell warn that academic clinical investigators who have access to unpublished price sensitive information about pharmaceutical companies whose shares they trade in will almost certainly be in breach of the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985. Furthermore, disclosing such information to third parties, they say, exposes those people also to potential criminal liability. Freestone and Mitchell advise that when potential for allegations of conflict of interest exists clinical investigators should consider declaring their position to ethics committees and any sponsoring organisations.     

Experimental Restoration of Disturbed Cliff-Edge Forests in Bruce Peninsula National Park, Ontario, Canada

Abstract Restoration of degraded natural vegetation in parks is often complicated by the need to maintain public access. We tested whether the natural canopy species, Thuja occidentalis, can be restored to degraded cliff edges in Bruce Peninsula National Park, Ontario, Canada without reductions in visitor numbers. Eighty 10‐year‐old and 80 4‐year‐old container‐grown saplings and 1,400 seeds were planted and monitored for 4 years. Eight treatments were applied that tested for effects of planting site (distance from cliff edge and pathways) and supportive measures (soil, water, cages, or signs) on survival, growth, and damage. No trees became successfully established from seed. Younger trees showed faster initial establishment and growth, but 4‐year survival was the same for both age groups (39%). Supplemental soil improved the health of planted trees, and both soil and water slightly improved their survival. Cages did not affect survival and growth but decreased damage to 4‐year‐old trees and increased it for 10‐year‐olds. Signs had no effect on any measured variable. Trees planted away from the cliff edge and from pathways had the greatest establishment success, 4‐year survival, and general health. Relative visitor density, as estimated from spot counts of visitors, had the largest effect on restoration success; the results suggest a threshold of visitor density above which restoration may be impossible. Planting location, especially with respect to shade, was also important. The planting of 4‐year‐old trees without supportive measures is suggested as the most cost‐effective restoration technique at this site. The results indicate that restoration of open woodland habitats is possible without total visitor exclusion but that some restrictions on visitor numbers or activities are necessary.     

Unanswered questions in ecology

This is very much a personal view of what I think are some of the most important unanswered questions in ecology. That is, these are the questions that I expect will be high on the research agenda over the coming century. The list is organized hierarchically, beginning with questions at the level of individual populations, and progressing through interacting populations to entire communities or ecosystems. I will try to guess both at possible advances in basic knowledge and at potential applications. The only thing that is certain about this view of the future is that much of it will surely turn out to be wrong, and many of the most interesting future developments will be quite unforeseen.