REFOCUSING THE RESPONSIVENESS REQUIREMENT

Many guidelines for international research require that studies be responsive to host community health needs or health priorities. Although responsiveness possesses great intuitive and rhetorical appeal, existing conceptions are confusing and difficult to apply. Not only are there few examples of what research the responsiveness requirement permits and what it rejects, but its application can lead to contradictory results. Because of the practical difficulties in applying responsiveness and the danger that misapplying responsiveness could harm the interests of developing countries, we argue that responsiveness should be refocused in three ways: in terms of (1) who enforces it, (2) under what standard, and (3) in what cases. We conclude that responsiveness should be applied by host country officials at the policy level with the exercise of judgment when externally funded research threatens to displace scarce local resources.     

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

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

Justifying Community Benefit Requirements in International Research

It is widely agreed that foreign sponsors of research in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) are morally required to ensure that their research benefits the broader host community. There is no agreement, however, about how much benefit or what type of benefit research sponsors must provide, nor is there agreement about what group of people is entitled to benefit. To settle these questions, it is necessary to examine why research sponsors have an obligation to benefit the broader host community, not only their subjects. Justifying this claim is not straightforward. There are three justifications for an obligation to benefit host communities that each apply to some research, but not to all. Each requires a different amount of benefit, and each requires benefit to be directed toward a different group. If research involves significant net risk to LMIC subjects, research must provide adequate benefit to people in LMICs to avoid an unjustified appeal to subjects’ altruism. If research places significant burdens on public resources, research must provide fair compensation to the community whose public resources are burdened. If research is for profit, research sponsors must contribute adequately to the upkeep of public goods from which they benefit in order to avoid the wrong of free‐riding, even if their use of these public goods is not burdensome.     

A Framework to Link International Clinical Research to the Promotion of Justice in Global Health

How international research might contribute to justice in global health has not been substantively addressed by bioethics. Theories of justice from political philosophy establish obligations for parties from high‐income countries owed to parties from low and middle‐income countries. We have developed a new framework that is based on Jennifer Ruger's health capability paradigm to strengthen the link between international clinical research and justice in global health. The ‘research for health justice’ framework provides direction on three aspects of international clinical research: the research target, research capacity strengthening, and post‐trial benefits. It identifies the obligations of justice owed by national governments, research funders, research sponsors, and investigators to trial participants and host communities. These obligations vary from those currently articulated in international research ethics guidelines. Ethical requirements of a different kind are needed if international clinical research is to advance global health equity.     

Prioritizing Surgical Care on National Health Agendas: A Qualitative Case Study of Papua New Guinea,Uganda, and Sierra Leone

BackgroundLittle is known about the social and political factors that influence priority setting for different health services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet these factors are integral to understanding how national health agendas are established. We investigated factors that facilitate or prevent surgical care from being prioritized in LMICs.ConclusionsNational health agenda setting is a complex social and political process. To embed surgical care within national health policy, sustained advocacy efforts, effective framing of the problem and solutions, and country-specific data are required. Political, technical, and financial support from regional and international partners is also important.     

Research ethics guidelines and moral obligations to developing countries: Capacity‐building and benefits

This article outlines challenges to benefitting developing countries that are hosts of international research. In the context of existing guidance and frameworks for benefit‐sharing, it aims to provoke dialog about socioeconomic factors and other background conditions that influence what constitute benefits in a given host setting, and about the proportionality between benefits to hosts and benefits to sponsors and researchers. It argues that capacity‐building for critical thinking and negotiation in many developing country governments, institutions, and communities is a benefit because it can help to overcome background conditions that impinge on equitable international research negotiations, partnerships, and benefits. Enhancing the capacity for both critical thinking and negotiation can, like other targets of capacity‐building, nurture respectful and trusting partnerships that benefit all stakeholders in international research.     

The reporting of IRB review in journal articles presenting HIV research conducted in the developing world

Objectives: We investigated how often journal articles reporting on human HIV research in four developing world countries mention any institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees (RECs), and what factors are involved. Methods: We examined all such articles published in 2007 from India, Nigeria, Thailand and Uganda, and coded these for several ethical and other characteristics. Results: Of 221 articles meeting inclusion criteria, 32.1% did not mention IRB approval. Mention of IRB approval was associated with: biomedical (versus psychosocial) research (P = 0.001), more sponsor‐country authors (P = 0.003), sponsor‐country corresponding author (P = 0.047), mention of funding (P < 0.001), particular host‐country involved (P = 0.002), journals having sponsor‐country editors (P < 0.001), and journal stated compliance with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines (P = 0.003). Logistic regression identified 3 significant factors: mention of funding, journal having sponsor‐country editors and research being biomedical. Conclusions: One‐third of articles still do not mention IRB approval. Mention varied by country, and was associated with biomedical research, and more sponsor country involvement. Recently, some journals have required mention of IRB approval, but allow authors to do so in cover letters to editors, not in the article itself. Instead, these data suggest, journals should require that articles document adherence to ethical standards.     

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

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

Off‐Shoring Clinical Research: Exploitation and the Reciprocity Constraint

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

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.     

Harmonizing regulations for biomedical research: a critical analysis of the US and Venezuelan systems

This article aims to compare the national legal systems that regulate biomedical research in an industrialized country (United States) and a developing country (Venezuela). A new international order is emerging in which Europe, Japan and the United States (US) are revising common guidelines and harmonizing standards. In this article, we analyze - as an example - the US system. This system is controlled by a federal agency structured to regulate research funded by the federal government uniformly, either in the US or abroad. In contrast, in Venezuela, a developing country, the creation of a centralized system is a slow process. Different types of ethical committees review research projects using non-uniform criteria. Consequently, various parallel organizations that conduct biomedical research, such as universities, research institutes and private hospitals have diverse regulations operating at a local level. Thus, the most relevant difference between the Venezuelan and the US systems is the degree of standardization. In the US, the review process is performed by institutional review boards (IRBs), which have a similar organization and maintain relationships with a centralized agency, following standard regulations. Although new proposals for establishing national regulations are currently being considered in Venezuela, the success of these initiatives will depend on promoting governmental efforts to create a more structured centralized system supported by a national regulatory framework. This system will need governmental financial support at all levels. This article proposes an integrated system to regulate research with human participants in Venezuela and other developing countries.     

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.     

‘Disease,Disaster and Despair’? The Presentation of Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries on Australian Television

Background

In high-income nations mainstream television news remains an important source of information about both general health issues and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, research on news coverage of health in LMICs is scarce.

Principal Findings

The present paper examines the general features of Australian television coverage of LMIC health issues, testing the hypotheses that this coverage conforms to the general patterns of foreign news reporting in high-income countries and, in particular, that LMIC health coverage will largely reflect Australian interests. We analysed relevant items from May 2005 – December 2009 from the largest health-related television dataset of its kind, classifying each story on the basis of the region(s) it covered, principal content relating to health in LMICs and the presence of an Australian reference point. LMICs that are culturally proximate and politically significant to Australia had higher levels of reportage than more distant and unengaged nations. Items concerning communicable diseases, injury and aspects of child health generally consonant with ‘disease, disaster and despair’ news frames predominated, with relatively little emphasis given to chronic diseases which are increasingly prevalent in many LMICs. Forty-two percent of LMIC stories had explicit Australian content, such as imported medical expertise or health risk to Australians in LMICs.

Significance

Media consumers'' perceptions of disease burdens in LMICs and of these nations'' capacity to identify and manage their own health priorities may be distorted by the major news emphasis on exotic disease, disaster and despair stories. Such perceptions may inhibit the development of appropriate policy emphases in high-income countries. In this context, non-government organisations concerned with international development may find it more difficult to strike a balance between crises and enduring issues in their health programming and fundraising efforts.     

Four approaches to guide ecological restoration in Latin America

There is strong upswing in conservation and restoration efforts in Latin America (LA), particularly in the recent decades after several countries have committed to international agreements such as the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Initiative 20×20, and the Bonn Challenge. To fulfill these agreements, the practice of ecological restoration has to be defined based on ecological knowledge, but also on the specific social, economic, and legal aspects of each country in the region. Here, we give some examples about the national understanding of ecological restoration in 10 countries of LA. We identify difficulties and opportunities to define restoration priorities and needs, and discuss some approaches to cope with economic constraints and agreements, including the potential role of restoration networks in this process. On the basis of the socioecological complexity of these countries and the expectations they have in relation to restoration, we proposed four approaches to guide restoration practice and policy in the region: (1) including biodiversity and ecosystem services approach into ecosystem restoration initiatives; (2) promoting restoration in their frequently human‐modified landscapes; (3) accounting for cost–benefit trade‐offs; and (4) assembling “horizontal” communication frameworks. These approaches should be based at national levels, but adapted to local‐regional levels, in a bottom‐up perspective. We consider that national and international restoration networks in the region can help to overcome difficulties, fostering a solid scientific community, helping to develop national approaches that better match the specific conditions of each country and enhancing communication among different groups of stakeholders.     

TRAINING NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN RESEARCH ETHICS EVALUATION AMONG RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN THREE AFRICAN COUNTRIES: CAMEROON,MALI AND TANZANIA

Background: As actors with the key responsibility for the protection of human research participants, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) need to be competent and well‐resourced in order to fulfil their roles. Despite recent programs designed to strengthen RECs in Africa, much more needs to be accomplished before these committees can function optimally. Objective: To assess training needs for biomedical research ethics evaluation among targeted countries. Methods: Members of RECs operating in three targeted African countries were surveyed between August and November 2007. Before implementing the survey, ethical approvals were obtained from RECs in Switzerland, Cameroon, Mali and Tanzania. Data were collected using a semi‐structured questionnaire in English and in French. Results: A total of 74 respondents participated in the study. The participation rate was 68%. Seventy one percent of respondents reported having received some training in research ethics evaluation. This training was given by national institutions (31%) and international institutions (69%). Researchers and REC members were ranked as the top target audiences to be trained. Of 32 topics, the top five training priorities were: basic ethical principles, coverage of applicable laws and regulations, how to conduct ethics review, evaluating informed consent processes and the role of the REC. Conclusion: Although the majority of REC members in the targeted African countries had received training in ethics, they expressed a need for additional training. The results of this survey have been used to design a training program in research ethics evaluation that meets this need.     

Weight under Steel Wheels: Material Stock and Flow Analysis of High‐Speed Rail in China

The construction of a nation‐wide high‐speed rail (HSR) network has emerged as a hugely expensive and ambitious infrastructure project in China. As of December 2012, some 8,800 kilometers (km) of double‐track HSR lines came into service in the country, accounting for 40% of the total HSR length in the world. The network is expected to expand to 34,000 km or longer in around two decades. As the first HSR system specially built and operated in an economically developing country, it helps integrate the sprawling economy and lift the quality of life of the increasing urban population. China's experiences in HSR are expected to be of value to other countries aiming to adopt bullet train systems, especially those at a similar level of industrialization and urbanization. This work specifically examines material stocks and flows associated with the HSR infrastructure construction in China. A major distinction from the construction of HSR tracks in Europe is that nearly 70% of the HSR tracks in China are laid upon bridges or inside tunnels, which are structures that demand great amounts of raw materials. The entire network, once completed by 2030, will cumulatively require 83 to 137 million tonnes (Mt) of steel and 560 to 920 Mt of cement. This is still a small share of China's use of material resources. Nonetheless, the massive application of the steel‐ and cement‐intensive structures deserves consideration when assessing the environmental performance of HSR over its entire life cycle.     

Informed Consent in Health Research: Challenges and Barriers in Low‐and Middle‐Income Countries with Specific Reference to Nepal

Obtaining ‘informed consent’ from every individual participant involved in health research is a mandatory ethical practice. Informed consent is a process whereby potential participants are genuinely informed about their role, risk and rights before they are enrolled in the study. Thus, ethics committees in most countries require ‘informed consent form’ as part of an ethics application which is reviewed before granting research ethics approval. Despite a significant increase in health research activity in low‐and middle‐income countries (LMICs) in recent years, only limited work has been done to address ethical concerns. Most ethics committees in LMICs lack the authority and/or the capacity to monitor research in the field. This is important since not all research, particularly in LMICs region, complies with ethical principles, sometimes this is inadvertently or due to a lack of awareness of their importance in assuring proper research governance. With several examples from Nepal, this paper reflects on the steps required to obtain informed consents and highlights some of the major challenges and barriers to seeking informed consent from research participants. At the end of this paper, we also offer some recommendations around how can we can promote and implement optimal informed consent taking process. We believe that paper is useful for researchers and members of ethical review boards in highlighting key issues around informed consent.     

Benefit Sharing in a Global Context: Working Towards Solutions for Implementation

Due to the state of globalized clinical research, questions have been raised as to what, if any, benefits those who contribute to research should receive. One model for compensating research participants is “benefit sharing,” and the basic premise is that, as a matter of justice, those who contribute to scientific research should share in its benefits. While incorporated into several international documents for over two decades, benefit sharing has only been sparsely implemented. This analysis begins by addressing the concept of benefit sharing, its historical development, and how it has been applied in the context of virus sharing for influenza research. The second portion of this analysis presents recommendations for ensuring benefit sharing. These recommendations are threefold: 1) an emphasis on social pressure, 2) the revision of international documents as means to ensure benefit sharing, and 3) greater collaboration between sponsor IRB and host country IRB. Because clinical research is a globalized industry, a global model will be proposed in the second that focuses on collaboration between the sponsor and host country. This collaboration is vital in order to ensure that proper forms of benefit sharing are accomplished as a matter of justice.     

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

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