Ethics in Drug Abuse and Related HIV Risk Research

Along with the benefits of a national research agenda on drug abuse and related HIV risk are ethical challenges associated with the multiple vulnerabilities of persons within these populations. Poverty, lack of education, related health conditions, illegal behaviors to obtain illicit drugs, gender, ethnic minority status, and psychological characteristics such as cravings and impulsivity require special research safeguards. However, federal provisions for the protection of vulnerable populations do not include special protections for individuals addicted to drugs. The challenges and value of participant perspectives on research risks and benefits, informed consent, confidentiality, and compensation for research on drug abuse and related HIV risk are discussed in this article.     

The ethics of risk displacement in research and public policy

We identify three distinct ethical problems that can arise with risk displacement. Risk displacement is the shifting of extant risk from one or more individuals to other individual(s) such that the reduction of risk to the first group is causally implicated in increasing risk to the second group. These problems are: concentration of risk in inequitable ways; transfer of risk to already vulnerable or disadvantaged populations; and exercise of undue influence over potential research participants. The first two arise in both public policy and research initiatives, whereas the third is a special concern that only applies to research initiatives. We argue that when one or more of these is of high magnitude, then the study or policy intervention may be ethically wrong. Finally, we conclude that although some risk displacement is ethically permissible, researchers and policymakers still have ethical reasons to reduce the magnitude of these problems.     

The Principle of Caveat Emptor: Confidentiality and Informed Consent as Endemic Ethical Dilemmas in Focus Group Research

Informed consent and confidentiality supposedly minimize harm for research participants in all qualitative research methodologies, inclusive of one-on-one unstructured interviews and focus groups. This is not the case for the latter. Confidentiality and informed consent uniquely manifest themselves as endemic ethical dilemmas for focus group researchers. The principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) may be a more useful tool for those involved in focus group research: that is, let the researcher, the participants and the ethics committee beware that the only ethical assurance that can be given to focus group participants is that there are few ethical assurances. These ethical dilemmas are not sufficiently realized in the literature, and if they are discussed, they are often dealt with within the focus group moderator’s preamble to the group discussion. This paper encourages the mandatory use of a participant information sheet sufficiently detailed to engender the participant’s active consent. Sufficient here means the participant must be made adequately aware of these endemic ethical dilemmas in advance, to allow them to consent to share responsibility for any ensuing harm. The focus group moderator is not their sole protector.     

What women who use drugs have to say about ethical research: findings of an exploratory qualitative study

Drug users are generally seen as a vulnerable population requiring special protection in research; however, to date there has been little empirical research into the ethics of research with illicit drug users. Moreover, the available research has tended to treat "drug users" as a homogeneous category, and has failed to consider potential gender differences in users' experiences. Drawing on focus groups with twenty-seven female drug users in Vancouver, Canada, this study examines women's experiences of research and what they see as ethical and respectful engagement. Many study participants talked about feeling dehumanized as a result of prior research participation. Women were critical of the assumption that drug users lack the capacity to take part in research, and affirmed the appropriateness of financial incentives. A variety of motivations for research participation were identified, including a desire for financial gain and altruistic concerns such as a desire to help others. These findings suggest that women drug users' views on ethical research differ from prevailing assumptions among institutional review boards about how research with such populations should proceed.     

Reexamining the categorical exclusion of pediatric participants from controlled human infection trials

Controlled human infection (CHI) models have been developed for numerous pathogens in order to better understand disease processes and accelerate drug and vaccine testing. In the past, some researchers conducted highly controversial CHIs with vulnerable populations, including children. Ethical frameworks for CHIs now recommend vulnerable populations be excluded because they cannot consent to high risk research. In this paper we argue that CHI studies span a wide spectrum of benefit and risk, and that some CHI studies may involve minimal risk. The categorical exclusion of children from CHIs therefore departs from the standard approach to evaluating research risks, as international regulations and ethical guidance for pediatric research generally permit non-beneficial research with low risks. The paradigm in research ethics has also shifted from focusing on protecting vulnerable participants to recognizing that inclusion can be important as a matter of justice, providing new reasons to question this default exclusion of children from CHIs. Recognizing that pediatric CHIs can raise complex ethical issues and are easy to sensationalize in ways that may threaten the public’s trust in research and sponsor institutions, we conclude by describing additional complexities that must be addressed before pediatric CHIs beyond licensed vaccine studies might be ethically acceptable.     

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.     

Ethical concerns associated with childhood depression

Children always merit special ethical concern in mental health research and treatment. But children with depression are a particularly vulnerable population because of developmental considerations and the severity of the illness. This article reviews ethical concerns regarding assessment of depression, clinical care, and research with children.     

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON ETHICAL CHALLENGES IN HIV VACCINE TRIALS IN SOUTH AFRICA

There is little published literature on the ethical concerns of stakeholders in HIV vaccine trials. This study explored the ethical challenges identified by various stakeholders, through an open-ended, in-depth approach. While the few previous studies have been largely quantitative, respondents in this study had the opportunity to spontaneously identify the issues that they perceived to be of priority concern in the South African context. Stakeholders spontaneously identified the following as ethical priorities: informed consent, social harms, collaborative relationships between research stakeholders, the participation of children and adolescents, access to treatment for participants who become infected with HIV, physical harms, fair participant and community selection, confidentiality, benefits, and payment.
While there is some speculation that research in developing countries poses special ethical challenges, overall no issues were identified that have not been anticipated in international guidance, literature and popular frameworks. However, the South African context affords a distinctive gloss to these expected issues; for example, respondents were concerned that the predominant selection of black participants may perpetuate racist practices of apartheid. Stakeholders should be aware of contextual factors impacting on the implementation of ethical principles. We make a series of recommendations for South African trials, including amendments to the ethical-legal framework and research policies, and, for further research.     

Ethics and health systems research in 'post'-conflict situations

Although considerable attention has been given to ethical issues related to clinical research in developing countries, in particular related to HIV therapy, there has been limited focus on health systems research, despite its increasing importance in the light of current trends in development assistance. This paper examines ethical issues related to health systems research in 'post'-conflict situations, addressing both generic issues for developing countries and those issues specific to 'post'-conflict societies, citing examples from the author's Cambodian experience. It argues that the destruction of health infrastructure results in a loss of structures and processes that would otherwise protect prospective research subjects who are part of vulnerable populations. It identifies the growth of health systems research as part of a trend towards sectoral and programmatic development assistance, the emergence of 'knowledge generation' as a form of research linked to development, and the potential for conflict where multilateral and bilateral donors are both primary funders and users of health systems research. It also examines the position of the health system researcher in relation to the sponsors of this research, and the health system being analysed.     

Healthcare professionals as gatekeepers in research involving refugee survivors of sexual torture: An examination of the ethical issues

This paper examines the ethical issues that arise when healthcare providers act as gatekeepers to research involving vulnerable populations. Traumatised refugees serve as an example of this subset of research participants. Highlighting the particular vulnerabilities of this group, we argue that specific ethical considerations are required that go beyond the conventional research approaches. While gatekeeping responds to some of those vulnerabilities, it risks wronging through unwarranted paternalism. Instead, we will propose that a relational ethics of justice and care serves as a more appropriate framework for responding to the challenges of research involving traumatised refugees. Specifically, such a framework allows us to reflect more deeply on the role of the gatekeeper. In conclusion, we recommend that clinicians and researchers collaborate with survivors’ advisory groups in the development of specific research ethical guidelines.     

Tailoring information provision and consent processes to research contexts: the value of rapid assessments

Guidance requires that consent processes for research be appropriately tailored to their cultural context. This paper discusses the use of rapid assessments to identify cultural and ethical issues arising when explaining research in studies in The Gambia and Ethiopia. The assessments provided insights into appropriate ways of providing information to minimize the risk of stigmatizing vulnerable research populations; research participants' views about the most important information to provide about research and their understandings of research; and perceived constraints upon reaching voluntary decisions about participation. These insights demonstrate that rapid assessments are a relatively quick and inexpensive intervention that can provide valuable information to assist in the tailoring of information provision and consent processes to research context while maintaining and enhancing participants' fundamental protections.     

Health research ethics in malaria vector trials in Africa

Malaria mosquito research in Africa as elsewhere is just over a century old. Early trials for development of mosquito control tools were driven by colonial enterprises and war efforts; they were, therefore, tested in military or colonial settings. The failure of those tools and environmental concerns, coupled with the desperate need for integrated malaria control strategies, has necessitated the development of new malaria mosquito control tools, which are to be tested on humans, their environment and mosquito habitats. Ethical concerns start with phase 2 trials, which pose limited ethical dilemmas. Phase 3 trials, which are undertaken on vulnerable civilian populations, pose ethical dilemmas ranging from individual to community concerns. It is argued that such trials must abide by established ethical principles especially safety, which is mainly enshrined in the principle of non-maleficence. As there is total lack of experience with many of the promising candidate tools (eg genetically modified mosquitoes, entomopathogenic fungi, and biocontrol agents), great caution must be exercised before they are introduced in the field. Since malaria vector trials, especially phase 3 are intrusive and in large populations, individual and community respect is mandatory, and must give great priority to community engagement. It is concluded that new tools must be safe, beneficial, efficacious, effective, and acceptable to large populations in the short and long-term, and that research benefits should be equitably distributed to all who bear the brunt of the research burdens. It is further concluded that individual and institutional capacity strengthening should be provided, in order to undertake essential research, carry out scientific and ethical review, and establish competent regulatory frameworks.     

Module one: introduction to research ethics

This module will introduce you to the ethical concepts underlying applied ethical decision-making in the area of research involving human participants. We will also learn what the issues are that people involved in research on research ethics are concerned with. Ethics without an understanding of historical and legal context makes arguably little sense. It is for this reason that this module will begin with a brief history of research ethics and ends with a brief overview of the relevant national and international guidelines pertaining to ethical issues in research involving human participants.     

Ethical issues concerning animal research outside the laboratory

Unique ethical issues can be associated with research outside the customary laboratory setting. Protocols involving wild animals must consider that any infringement on the wild nature of the species can be disruptive and may involve pain, fear, anxiety, and frustration, all of which constitute ethical harm that must be balanced with anticipated benefit. Agricultural and companion animal research, however, take place in a human-engineered environment and involves domesticated species adapted to human contact. Special animal welfare issues can be related to agricultural production goals that fail to deal adequately with moral concerns. Human/companion animal relationships, on the other hand, present unique moral obligations to animal owners. Other factors may present additional ethical issues when research is performed outside the laboratory. These factors include a required sensitivity to the environment of wild animals and an awareness that this outside research may to quite public and, therefore, vulnerable to community perception. The institutional animal care and use committee(IACUC) has the responsibility to ensure that research in outside settings is ethical and properly implemented. This responsibility requires that IACUC members have knowledge of the needs of a wide range of species and that a process is in place to allow effective monitoring of research in remote locations. Finally, and most important, there must be a sensitivity to the unique ethical considerations outlined here. Armed with these strengths, the IACUC will be effective in what may be unfamiliar surroundings and will have a significant opportunity to cause improvements in animal welfare.     

Informed consent and ethical re-use of African genomic data

Rapid advances in human genomic research are increasing the availability of genomic data for secondary analysis. Particularly in the case of vulnerable African populations, ethics and informed consent processes need to be transparent-both to ensure participant protection, as well as to share skills and to evolve best practice for informed consent from a shared knowledge base. An open dialogue between all stakeholders can facilitate this.     

Informed Consent, Exploitation and Whether it is Possible to Conduct Human Subjects Research Without Either One

Clinical research with adults who are unable to provide informed consent has the potential to improve understanding and care of a number of devastating conditions. This research also has the potential to exploit some of society's most vulnerable members. Recently, a number of task forces and individual writers have proposed guidelines to ensure that such research is both possible and ethical. Yet, there is widespread disagreement over which safeguards should be adopted. In the present paper, I consider to what extent these disagreements can be resolved by appeal to a general account of the interests of subjects who are unable to consent and the conditions that must be satisfied for research enrollment to constitute exploitation of their inability to make their own decisions.     

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.     

The right to withdraw from controlled human infection studies: Justifications and avoidance

The right to withdraw from research without penalty is well established around the world. However, it has been challenged in some corners of bioethics based on concerns about various harms—to participants, to scientific integrity, and to research bystanders—that may stem from withdrawal. These concerns have become particularly salient in emerging debates about the ethics of controlled human infection (CHI) studies in which participants are intentionally infected with pathogens, often in inpatient settings with extensive follow-up. In this article, I provide support for preserving the right to withdraw from research without penalty and demonstrate that it is also typically justified in the specific context of CHI studies. The right is well aligned with individual freedoms outside the research setting, where autonomous individuals are permitted to engage in behaviors that will foreseeably cause them harm; where they cannot be compelled to satisfy contracts for their services, nor penalized for failure to do so; and where their behavior is not constrained by public health authorities except in extreme circumstances. These freedoms are supported by U.S. law, as well as by ethical analysis that is more globally relevant. The problems associated with the right to withdraw, however, remain. The best approach to addressing them is not to restrict the right but rather to avoid initiating research when withdrawal would be especially problematic. If research proceeds, steps can still be taken to minimize participant withdrawal without infringing the right. Investigators can avoid participant surprise through informed consent focused on a study’s most burdensome aspects and promote study completion through financial incentives. Should participants nonetheless seek to withdraw, investigators may attempt to persuade them not to do so by encouraging consideration of the range of potential harms that may result. Researchers conducting CHI studies and other research from which withdrawal might be especially problematic should prepare for the possibility of participant withdrawal, respect participant requests to withdraw without penalty, and incorporate various measures to avoid such requests.     

Considerations in the construction of an instrument to assess attitudes regarding critical illness gene variation research

Clinical studies conducted in intensive care units are associated with logistical and ethical challenges. Diseases investigated are precipitous and life-threatening, care is highly technological, and patients are often incapacitated and decision-making is provided by surrogates. These investigations increasingly involve collection of genetic data. The manner in which the exigencies of critical illness impact attitudes regarding genetic data collection is unstudied. Given interest in understanding stakeholder preferences as a foundation for the ethical conduct of research, filling this knowledge gap is timely. The conduct of opinion research in the critical care arena is novel. This brief report describes the development of parallel patient/surrogate decision-maker quantitative survey instruments for use in this environment. Future research employing this instrument or a variant of it with diverse populations promises to inform research practices in critical illness gene variation research.     

Bioethics for clinicians: 10. Research ethics

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