The use of foster children as subjects in the pediatric HIV/AIDS clinical trials has been the subject of media controversy, raising a range of ethical and social dimensions. Several unsettled issues and debates in research ethics underlie the controversy and the lack of consensus among professional researchers on these issues was neither adequately appreciated nor presented in media reports. These issues include (1) the tension between protecting subjects from research risk while allowing them access to the possible benefits of research; (...) (2) the blurring of the potentially conflicting roles of investigator and physician and the boundaries between research and therapy; (3) the adequacy of Institutional Review Board oversight; and (4) trust and the relationships among physicians, investigators and industry. The media controversy about the pediatric HIV/AIDS clinical trials can be seen as a means of “manufacturing mistrust” in health care, research and social services that have not always met the needs and expectations of the public. In an era of emerging infections, it is critical to the public’s health that people understand the role of rigorous and ethical research in the development of safe and effective care. Investigators, journalists and the public need to become knowledgeable about major ethical issues in the conduct of research in order to engage in dialogue about balancing research risks and benefits and to be able to distinguish fact from distortion in an era of multiple and rapid transmission of information. (shrink)

Social Media, like Facebook and Twitter, are having a profound effect on the way that human subjects research is being conducted. In light of the changes proposed in ANPRM, in this article I argue that traditional research ethics and regulations may not easily translate to the use of social media in human subjects research. Using the conceptual model of apomediation, which describes the peer-to-peer way in which health information is shared via social media, I suggest that we may need to (...) think again about the suitability of current regulations to deal with social media research. (shrink)

Social media, meaning digital technologies and platforms such as blogs, wikis, forums, content aggregators, sharing sites, and social networks like Facebook and Twitter, have profoundly changed the way that information can be shared online. Now, almost anyone with a broadband internet connection or a smart phone can share ideas, data, and opinions with just about anyone else on the planet. This change has serious implications for the way in which human subjects research can be conducted and, concomitantly, for the ways (...) in which such research may be regulated. This article explores some of these issues. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe concept of ‘vulnerability’ is well established within the realm of research ethics and most ethical guidelines include a section on ‘vulnerable populations’. However, the term ‘vulnerability’, used within a human research context, has received a lot of negative publicity recently and has been described as being simultaneously ‘too broad’ and ‘too narrow’.1 The aim of the paper is to explore the concept of research vulnerability by using a detailed case study – that of mineworkers in post‐apartheid South Africa. In (...) particular, the usefulness of Kipnis’s taxonomy of research vulnerability will be examined.2In recent years the volume of clinical research on human subjects in South Africa has increased significantly. The HIV and TB pandemics have contributed to this increase. These epidemics have impacted negatively on the mining industry; and mining companies have become increasingly interested in research initiatives that address these problems. This case study explores the potential research vulnerability of mineworkers in the context of the South African mining industry and examines measures that can reduce this vulnerability. (shrink)

The federal regulations that govern biomedical research, most notably those enshrined in the Common Rule, express a protectionist ethos aimed at safeguarding subjects of human experimentation from the potential harms of research participation. In at least one critical way, however, the regulations have always fallen short of this promise: if a subject suffers a research-related injury, then neither the investigator nor the sponsor has any legal obligation under the regulations to care for or compensate the subject. Because very few subjects (...) with research-related injuries can meet the financial or evidentiary requirements associated with a successful legal claim to recover the costs associated with their injuries, most injured subjects must shoulder the burden of those expenses alone. For 40 years, national advisory panels have concluded that this result is out of step with the Common Rule's otherwise protectionist promise. When the Department of Health and Human Services released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in 2011, suggesting potential changes to the Common Rule, the time seemed ripe to address research-related injuries. The ANPRM, however, makes no mention of compensation for research-related injuries, and the federal government once again seems poised to stop short of addressing what has arguably become the most longstanding, frequent, and consistent plea for regulatory reform of research: protections for injured subjects. This article asks why, despite decades of federal-level panels recommending no-fault compensation for research-related injuries, the United States has so strongly resisted change. I suggest that a central reason for our current impasse is that, despite consensus among federal advisory committees that there is an obligation to compensate injured subjects, the committees have not coalesced around a moral justification for that duty. Although multiple justifications can support and even strengthen a single ethical obligation, the reverse has occurred in this context. I demonstrate that the committees' articulation of multiple ethical principles – including humanitarianism, professional beneficence, and compensatory justice – results in incongruent obligations that favor different kinds of compensation systems. This outcome, which I call “moral gridlock,” makes it extremely difficult to determine what kind of compensation scheme to implement. Recognizing that each moral argument for compensation creates a slightly different trajectory is, however, an important first step in moving toward a more systematic approach to compensating injured research subjects. (shrink)

The federal regulations that govern biomedical research, most notably those enshrined in the Common Rule, are a product of their time. Born in the aftermath of wartime atrocities committed by Nazi doctors, and influenced by domestic research scandals like the Willowbrook and Tuskegee studies, the regulations express a protectionist ethos aimed at safeguarding subjects of human experimentation from the potential harms of research participation. Requirements for informed consent, risk minimization, equitable subject selection, and peer review of proposed research rest on (...) the presumption that the research enterprise owes subjects a duty of protection. (shrink)

Given the primary mandate for institutional review boards (IRBs) to protect potential participants from harm, the egregious history of research abuses, and the fact that there is no mention of incl...