BackgroundProfessional guidelines have addressed ethical dilemmas posed by a few types of nontraditional procreative arrangements, but many questions arise regarding how providers view and make decisions about these and other such arrangements.MethodsThirty-seven ART providers and 10 patients were interviewed in-depth for approximately 1 h each. Interviews were systematically analyzed.ResultsProviders faced a range of challenges and ethical dilemmas concerning both the content and the process of decisions about requests for unconventional interfamilial and other reproductive combinations. Providers vary in how they respond (...) — what they decide, who exactly decides, and how — often undergoing complex decision-making processes. These combinations can involve creating or raising the child, and can shift over time — from initial ART treatment through to the child’s birth. Patients’ requests can vary from fully established to mere possibilities. Arrangements may also be unstable, fluid, or unexpected, posing challenges. Difficulties emerge concerning not only familial but social, combinations. These arrangements can involve blurry and confusing roles, questions about the welfare of the unborn child, and unanticipated and unfamiliar questions about how to weigh competing moral and scientific concerns — e.g., the autonomy of the individuals involved, and the potential risks and benefits. Clinicians may feel that these requests do not “smell right”; and at first respond with feelings of “yuck,” and only later, carefully and explicitly consider the ethical principles involved. Proposed arrangements may, for instance, initially be felt to involve consanguineous individuals, but not in fact do so. Obtaining and verifying full and appropriate informed consent can be difficult, given implicit familial and/or cultural expectations and senses of duty. Social attitudes are changing, yet patients’ views of these issues may also vary, based on their cultural backgrounds.ConclusionsThese data, the first to examine how clinicians make decisions about unconventional reproductive arrangements, highlight several critical ethical questions and ambiguities, and variations in clinicians’ responses. While several professional guidelines exist, the current data highlight additional challenges, and have vital implications for improving future guidelines, practice, education and research.Trial registrationNot applicable. (shrink)

Protecting the people we experiment on --"Inside the black box" : becoming and being IRB members -- Weighing risks and benefits and undue inducement -- Defining research and how good it needs to be -- What to tell subjects : battles over consent forms -- From "nitpicky" to "user-friendly" : inter-IRB variations and their causes -- Federal agencies vs. local IRBs -- The roles of industry -- The local ecologies of institutions -- Trusting vs. policing researchers -- Bad behavior: research (...) integrity -- Researchers abroad : studies in the developing world -- Changing national policies -- Conclusions : other changes. (shrink)

Background Autism self-advocates’ views regarding genetic tests for autism are important, but critical questions about their perspectives arise.Methods We interviewed 11 autism self-advocates, recruited through autism self-advocacy websites, for 1 h each.Results Interviewees viewed genetic testing and its potential pros and cons through the lens of their own indiviudal perceived challenges, needs and struggles, especially concerning stigma and discrimination, lack of accommodations and misunderstandings from society about autism, their particular needs for services, and being blamed by others and by themselves (...) for autistic traits. Their views of genetic testing tended not to be binary, but rather depended on how the genetic test results would be used. Interviewees perceived pros of genetic testing both in general and with regard to themselves (e.g., by providing “scientific proof” of autism as a diagnosis and possibly increasing availability of services). But they also perceived disadvantages and limitations of testing (e.g., possible eugenic applications). Participants distinguished between what they felt would be best for themselves and for the autistic community as a whole. When asked if they would undergo testing for themselves, if offered, interviewees added several considerations (e.g., undergoing testing because they support science in general). Interviewees were divided whether a genetic diagnosis would or should reduce self-blame, and several were wary of testing unless treatment, prevention or societal attitudes changed. Weighing these competing pros and cons could be difficult.Conclusions This study, the first to use in-depth qualitative interviews to assess views of autism self-advocates regarding genetic testing, highlights key complexities. Respondents felt that such testing is neither wholly good or bad in itself, but rather may be acceptable depending on how it is used, and should be employed in beneficial, not harmful ways. These findings have important implications for practice, education of multiple stakeholders, research, and policy. (shrink)

Introduction Scholars have debated how to define coercion and undue influence, but how institutional review boards (IRBs) view and make decisions about these issues in actual cases has not been explored. Methods I contacted the leadership of 60 US IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health funding), and interviewed 39 IRB leaders or administrators from 34 of these institutions (response rate=55%), and 7 members. Results IRBs wrestled with defining of ‘coercion’ (...) and ‘undue inducement’, most notably in deciding about participant compensation. IRBs often use these terms synonymously and define undue inducement in varying ways, often wrestling with these issues, relying on ‘gut feelings’, and seeking compromises. Ambiguities arose, partly reflecting underlying tensions: whether subjects should ‘get paid’ versus ‘volunteer’ (ie, whether subjects should be motivated by compensation vs altruism), and whether subjects should be paid differently based on income, given possible resultant selection bias. Lack of consistent standards emerged between and even on single IRBs. Questions arose concerning certain aspects and types of studies; for example, how to view and weigh providing free care in research, whether and how recruitment flyers should mention compensation, and how to avoid coercion in paediatric, developing world, or students research. Conclusions These data, the first to probe qualitatively how IRBs view and approach questions about coercion, undue influence and participant compensation, and to examine how IRBs have reviewed actual cases, reveal several critical ambiguities and dilemmas, and have vital implications for future practice, education, policy and research. (shrink)

Increasingly, US-sponsored research is carried out in developing countries, but how US Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) approach the challenges they then face is unclear.METHODS: I conducted in-depth interviews of about 2 hours each, with 46 IRB chairs, directors, administrators and members. I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs in the United States (US) (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding), and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 (55%).RESULTS: US IRBs face (...) ethical and logistical challenges in interpreting and applying principles and regulations in developing countries, given economic and health disparities, and limited contextual knowledge. These IRBs perceive wide variations in developing world IRBs/RECs' quality, resources and training; and health systems in some countries may have long-standing practices of corruption. These US IRBs often know little of local contexts, regulations and standards of care, and struggle with understandings of other cultures' differing views of autonomy, and risks and benefits of daily life. US IRBs thus face difficult decisions, including how to interpret principles, how much to pay subjects and how much sustainability to require from researchers. IRB responses and solutions include trying to maintain higher standards for developing world research, obtain cultural expertise, build IRB infrastructure abroad, communicate with foreign IRBs, and ‘negotiate’ for maximum benefits for participants and fearing ‘worst-case scenarios’.CONCLUSIONS: US and foreign IRBs confront a series of tensions and dilemmas in reviewing developing world research. These data have important implications for increased education of IRBs/RECs and researchers in the US and abroad, and for research and practice. (shrink)

Background: Centralization of IRB reviews have been increasing in the US and elsewhere, but many questions about it remain. In the US, a few centralized IRBs (CIRBs) have been established, but how they do and could operate remain unclear. Methods: I contacted 60 IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding), and interviewed leaders from 34 (response rate = 55%) and an additional 12 members and administrators. Results: These interviewees had often interacted with (...) CIRBs, but supported local reviews, and offered advantages and disadvantages of each. Interviewees argued that local IRBs can provide "local knowledge" of subjects and PIs, and "curbside consults" with PIs, facilitating mutual trust. PIs may interact more fully and informally, and hence effectively with local IRBs. IRBs also felt additional responsibility to protect "their own" subjects. Respondents mentioned a few advantages of CIRBs (e.g., CIRBs may streamline reviews), though far more rarely and cursorily. Overall, interviewees were wary of CIRBs, which they saw as varying widely in quality, depending on who happened to be members. Both local and centralized IRBs appear to have unintended consequences. For instance, discrepancies arose between IRBs that appeared to reflect differences in institutional culture and history, and personalities of chairs and/or vocal members, more than in local community values per se, and thus do not seem to be the intent of the regulations. While some critics see CIRBs as solutions to many IRB problems, critical tradeoffs and uncertainties emerge. Conclusions: These data have critical implications for future policy and research. Debates need to evolve beyond simply a binary discussion of whether CIRBs should replace local IRBs, to examine how and to what degree different models might operate, and what the relative advantages and disadvantages of each are. While some critics see CIRBs as panaceas, certain problems appear likely to continue. Careful consideration needs to be given to whether the advantages of local IRBs outweigh the problems that result, and whether a system can be developed that provides these benefits, while avoiding the disadvantages of local IRBs. (shrink)

BackgroundEgg donor agencies are increasingly being used as part of IVF in the US, but are essentially unregulated, posing critical ethical and policy questions concerning how providers view and use them, and what the implications might be.MethodsThirty-seven in-depth interviews of approximately 1 h were conducted – with 27 IVF providers and 10 patients.ResultsClinicians vary in their views and interactions concerning egg donor agencies, ranging widely in whether and how often they use agencies. Agencies may offer egg recipients increased choices, but (...) raise ethical and other concerns regarding respect for donors as individuals, potential harms, justice, and donors constituting a vulnerable group. The quality of agencies appears to vary considerably, from acceptable to problematic. Agencies’ medical and psychological screenings of donors can range, and be minimal. Not all agencies adequately track donors’ prior numbers of donations, or share the relevant records with clinics. Clinics may find that potential donors have genetic mutations and medical problems about which they were unaware. Yet agencies and clinics do not provide care for such donors, generating stress. Dissemination of donors’ personal data can potentially threaten confidentiality. Questions emerge of whether increased monitoring/oversight of agencies may be beneficial.ConclusionsThese data, the first to examine providers’ views and interactions regarding egg donor agencies, suggest wide variations in quality and use of agencies, and have critical implications for practice, policy, education and research. Given the potential limitations of the current model of self-regulation of agencies, the present data suggest needs to consider stronger professional guidelines or possible governmental regulations to establish, require and enforce higher standards for agencies to follow, regarding advertising to potential donors and recipients, arranging for appropriate informed consent concerning risks and benefits involved, and for quality control. Appropriate informed consent should be obtained from potential egg donors, including the fact that they may learn about mutations or medical problems about which they were unaware, but for which they will not receive treatment as part of this process. Enhancing understanding among the public-at-large about what egg donation entails may also be helpful. (shrink)

Nielsen Busch and Mjaaland (2023) raise important considerations, but confuse certain critical issues and overlook others, and questions emerge about how these decisions should be made in our socie...

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) can play vital roles in observing, monitoring, and responding to research integrity (RI) issues among researchers, yet many questions remain concerning whether, when, and in what ways these boards adopt these roles. I contacted 60 IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding), and interviewed leaders from 34 (response rate=55%), and an additional 12 members and administrators. IRBs become involved in a variety of RI problems, broadly defined, and face (...) challenges in deciding how and when to do so. IRBs vary in how they define, discover, and respond to RI problems, and interact with other institutional offices concerning these issues; and what types of RI violations they encountered. While many institutions establish separate Compliance Offices, the boundaries and relationships between these entities and IRBs vary; and many IRBs discover and monitor RI violations, and struggle with how to respond. Larger questions arise of how IRBs decide whether to trust vs. closely monitor individual PIs. IRBs' roles are often indirect, and not fully systematic, raising questions of whether these functions should be enhanced, and if so, to what degree, and how. These areas require heightened investigation and discussion. (shrink)

This study – the first to explore how infertility providers confront several critical dilemmas concerning sex selection of embryos for nonmedical, social reasons – highlights key challenges and questions. Clinicians struggle, for instance, with how to define “family balalancing”, when to offer it, and how to decide.

ABSTRACTGiven the ethical controversies concerning HIV vaccine trials , we aimed to understand through an exploratory study how members of institutional review boards in the United States and research ethics committees in South Africa view issues concerning the process and content of reviews of these studies. We mailed packets of 20 questionnaires to 12 US IRB chairs and administrators and seven REC chairs to distribute to their members. We received 113 questionnaires . In both countries, members tended to be white (...) males with advanced academic degrees. Compared to the US, SA members called for ‘major changes’ in HVT protocols more frequently , and were less likely to think that HVT participants understood risks and benefits or informed consent forms . In both countries, members were divided on several critical issues , but agreed that they needed more training. Of the SA respondents, 40% reported that they were ‘self‐taught’ in ethics. This study, the first we know of to offer quantitative data comparing US vs. non‐US IRBs/RECs, thus suggests key similarities and differences , along with needs for education. These initial exploratory data in this area have important implications for IRBs, RECs, policy‐makers and scholars concerning future practice, training, policy, and investigations in research ethics, and prevention and treatment of HIV and other diseases in the developing world and elsewhere. (shrink)

Institutional Review Boards can play vital roles in observing, monitoring, and responding to research integrity issues among researchers, yet many questions remain concerning whether, when, and in what ways these boards in fact adopt these roles. Increasingly, RI is being challenged due to many factors, yet the extent of violations, and institutional responses to these, remain unknown. As the amount and complexity of experiments on human participants, often funded by for-profit industry, mushrooms, scandals have occurred, posing dilemmas concerning how to (...) best oversee research to protect these participants from harm.For over 15 years, many institutions have been developing research compliance programs that monitor misconduct and conflict of interest, and may interact with IRBs. In 2002, the Institute of Medicine report, “Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants,” called for increased assessment of the overall human research protections system, and oversight of research. (shrink)

Informed consent is crucial in research, but potential participants may not all speak the same language, posing questions that have not been examined concerning decisions by institutional review boards and research ethics committees’ about the need for researchers to translate consent forms and other study materials. Sixty US IRBs were contacted, and leaders from 34 and an additional 12 members and administrators were interviewed. IRBs face a range of problems about translation of informed consent documents, questionnaires and manuals—what, when and (...) how to translate , why to do so and how to decide. Difficulties can arise about translation of specific words and of broader cultural concepts regarding processes of informed consent and research, especially in the developing world. In these decisions, IRBs weigh the need for autonomy and justice against practical concerns about costs to researchers. At times IRBs may have to compromise between these competing goals. These data, the first to examine when and how IRBs/RECs require researchers to translate materials, thus highlight a range of problems with which these committees struggle, suggesting a need for further normative and empirical investigation of these domains, and consideration of guidelines to help IRBs deal with these tensions. (shrink)

Several films, including Three Identical Strangers, examined ethical problems in an experiment that involved identical siblings who were adopted as infants and separated into different families to examine the effects of nature versus nurture. The study was primarily designed and directed by Dr Peter Neubauer. The experiment, conducted in the 1960’s through 1980’s, serves as an important cautionary case study, raising several critical and ongoing ethical issues faced by researchers, universities and archives today. The organisation coordinating the study donated the (...) research records to Yale University under the condition that they remain sealed until 2065, and has impeded study participants’ full access to research material. This case raises questions of what investigators, their descendants, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, universities and archives should do with study records when researchers retire or die—whether universities should accept researchers’ donations of archival records that may contain patient or participant data, and if so, under what conditions. This study also poses crucial issues for IRBs—for example, whether researchers themselves or their designates should control all access to study records, particularly if controversy or lawsuits ensue. These questions will become increasingly crucial since the amount of research has burgeoned over recent decades, and investigators, on retirement or death, may want to donate their archives to universities. This experiment thus highlights ethical questions to which researchers, IRBs, universities, healthcare institutions, archivists and libraries should attend. (shrink)

Researchers have increasingly been creating chimeras – combinations of cells from two species – raising profound ethical, social and scientific controversies. Such research could lead to the creation of animals such as pigs that contain human organs for transplantation, yet public fears have emerged. Scientists have thus called for enhanced public education and discussion, but these efforts require comprehension of the nature of public concerns. While arguments have viewed chimeras as either “good” or “bad,” artists have long depicted chimeras in (...) ways that can inform these discussions. Chimeras have a long history – the term itself is from Greek mythology – and have generated complex and ambivalent responses, reflecting deep questions regarding who we are as humans. Images across disparate cultures suggest how humans have long seen species boundaries as fluid but in differing ways. These images suggest that emotional, not just rational, utilitarian perspectives need to be addressed and that challenges may arise in altering views of all individuals. Nonetheless, public messages could draw on historic examples of positive such combinations. Thus, artistic representations can aid scientists, policymakers, educators and members of the public-at-large recognize and better comprehend and address the discomforts chimeras can foster. (shrink)

BackgroundMoral dilemmas have arisen concerning whether physicians and other providers should treat patients who have declined COVID vaccination and are now sick with this disease. Several ethicists have argued that clinicians have obligations to treat such patients, yet providing care to these patients has distressed clinicians, who have at times declined to do so. Critical questions thus emerge regarding how best to proceed.Main bodyProviders face moral tensions: whether to place the benefits to an unvaccinated patient over their duties to protect (...) themselves and their families, staff and other patients, and goals of working collaboratively with patients. Clinicians’ duties to treat such patients arguably outweigh claims otherwise, but these obligations are creating moral conflict and distress for providers. Moral distress has been associated with burnout, post-traumatic stress disorder, and interpersonal and work difficulties. Given ongoing vaccine refusals, these problems are unlikely to disappear in the foreseeable future. Society has obligations to address this moral distress due to principles of reciprocity, and implicit social contracts, as part of which physicians risk their lives in caring for patients for the good of society as a whole. Responses are thus urgently needed at several levels: by hospitals, medical schools, professional societies, governments, media, providers and patients. Medical training on professionalism should address these stresses, probing why doctors have duties to treat these patients, but also how moral conflicts can ensue, and how best to address these tensions. Governments and institutions should thus alter relevant policies and devote more resources to addressing clinicians’ psychological strains. Institutions should also improve organizational culture. Public health organizations and the media described clinicians, earlier in the pandemic, as heroes, committed to treating COVID patients. This narrative should now be changed to highlight the strains that unvaccinated patients cause—endangering hospital staff and others.ConclusionsUnvaccinated COVID patients should receive care, but multi-level strategies, involving enhanced policies, education and practice are vital to alleviate ensuing moral distress, and thus aid these clinicians and their patients. Ethical arguments that providers must treat these patients have not considered these obligations’ effects on clinicians, but should do so. (shrink)

While attention has focused in many states and countries on the initial acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and on lowering rates of infection and deaths, evidence suggests that among many survivo...

On September 5, 2020, the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing, established by the U.S. National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Science,...

Recently, several genetic variants have been associated with increased or decreased risks of becoming infected and/or seriously ill with COVID-19—not only offering important potential medical benefits but also posing critical ethical questions. These genetic factors, some of which are associated with blood type, may account for variations in observed responses to COVID-19. Hence, assessments of these genetic differences and blood type could provide possible benefits in gauging patients’ risks of disease acquisition and prioritising allocation of interventions or vaccines, if supplies (...) are limited. The media has widely reported these findings, and people online are now discussing their blood type and its possible effects on their COVID-19 risks, but several ethical concerns arise. Individuals possessing genetic variants or blood types associated with lower risk may engage in ‘risk compensation’, erroneously assuming that they can protect themselves less, and hence less frequently wearing masks or washing hands. Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many physicians, hospitals, patients, policymakers, members of the public, testing companies and others may well consider these factors in making critical prevention/treatment decisions. Researchers, providers and others should thus begin to address these concerns. Increased awareness and education aimed at providers, patients, family members, public health officials, political leaders and the public-at-large are critical. Attitudinal research is vital to examine how providers, patients and the public understand these findings. Ethical frameworks and guidelines are needed, addressing whether such genetic information should be incorporated into decisions regarding allocation of scarce resources—including hospital and ICU beds, ventilators, medications and vaccines—and if so, how. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

In the foundational piece in this issue of the journal, “Integrating Law and Social Epidemiology,” Burris, Kawachi, and Sarat present a model for understanding the relationship between law and health. This article uses the case of a specific health condition, the human immunodeficiency virus infection, as an opportunity to flesh out this schema and to test how the model “fits” the world of the HIV pandemic. In applying the model to this communicable disease, we hope to illustrate the multitude of (...) ways that laws affect the course of the pandemic as well as the course of an individual’s vulnerability or resilience to the disease, and how the complexities of an individual’s life dealing with the virus interface with the world of laws and legal institutions. (shrink)

In the foundational piece in this issue of the journal, “Integrating Law and Social Epidemiology,” Burris, Kawachi, and Sarat present a model for understanding the relationship between law and health. This article uses the case of a specific health condition, the human immunodeficiency virus infection, as an opportunity to flesh out this schema and to test how the model “fits” the world of the HIV pandemic. In applying the model to this communicable disease, we hope to illustrate the multitude of (...) ways that laws affect the course of the pandemic as well as the course of an individual’s vulnerability or resilience to the disease, and how the complexities of an individual’s life dealing with the virus interface with the world of laws and legal institutions. (shrink)

Electronic institutional review board systems (eIRBs) have become an integral component in ensuring compliance with Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) and IRB requirements. Despite this, few of these systems are configured to administer the single IRB (sIRB) process mandated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for multisite research. We interviewed 103 sIRB administrators, chairs, members, and staff members about their experiences with sIRB multisite research review. We observed three main obstacles to adapting existing eIRB systems to accommodate the sIRB (...) process: (1) Existing systems are not designed for sIRBs and are not configured to administer sIRB responsibilities, (2) they are not interoperable, and (3) resources to improve existing systems are lacking. Our findings suggest that IRBs that act as an sIRB will need major changes to their electronic systems in order to accommodate sIRB processes. These difficulties threaten both the ability of IRBs to focus on ethical rather than bureaucratic problems and the efficiency of multisite trials. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised a host of ethical challenges, but key among these has been the possibility that health care systems might need to ration scarce critical care resources. Rationing p...

The United States has the fastest growing prison population in the world, and elevated incarceration rates, substance use, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence are fueling each other. Yet without a national guideline mandated for HIV care within the prison system, standards for state and federal prisons vary greatly.

Critical ethical questions arise concerning whether studies among adolescents of new behavioral and biomedical HIV preventive interventions such as Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis should obtain parental permission. This paper examines the relevant regulations and ethical guidance concerning waivers of parental permission, and arguments for and against such waivers. Opponents of such waivers may argue that adolescent decision-making is “too immature” and that parents always have rights to decide how to protect their children. Yet requiring parental permission may put adolescents at risk, and/or (...) limit adolescent participation, jeopardizing study findings’ validity. This paper presents recommendations on when researchers and Institutional Review Boards should waive parental permission, and what special protections should be adopted for adolescents who consent for themselves, e.g., assuring adolescent privacy and confidentiality, screening for capacity to consent, and identifying adolescents who are at elevated risk from study participation. We also present a series of specific areas for future research to design tools to help make these assessments, and to inform researcher and IRB decisions. These recommendations can help ensure that research is conducted that can aid adolescents at risk for HIV, while minimizing risks and protecting these individuals' rights as much as possible. (shrink)

The new National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) for Multi-Site Research was adopted primarily to simplify and speed the review of complex multisite clinical trials. However, speeding review requires overcoming a number of obstacles. Perhaps the most substantial obstacle is the time and effort needed to develop reliance agreements among the participating sites. We conducted 102 semistructured interviews with sIRB personnel, including directors, chairs, reviewers, and staff, from 20 IRBs that (...) acted as sIRBs for multisite research, including 6 commercial/independent sIRBs, and 10 university-based academic and 4 federal sIRBs. Almost without exception, the interviewees agreed that reliance agreements were complex, difficult to develop, and time-consuming. A major problem for relying sites was that different agreements specified different responsibilities for the relying sites. Attitudes differed about whether these problems will be resolved as IRB staff and managers become more experienced with sIRBs. However it is clear that the process of developing reliance agreements must be simplified. Federal assistance in standardizing at least some sections of reliance agreements might reduce the difficulties involved. (shrink)

Contemporary bioethics education has been developed predominately within Euro-American contexts, and now, other global regions are increasingly joining the field, leading to a richer global understanding. Nevertheless, many standard bioethics curriculum materials retain a narrow geographic focus. The purpose of this article is to use local cases from the Asia-Pacific region as examples for exploring questions such as ‘what makes a case or example truly local, and why?’, ‘what topics have we found to be best explained through local cases or (...) examples?’, and ‘how does one identify a relevant local case?’ Furthermore, we consider the global application of local cases to help extend the possible scope of the discussion, opening new avenues for the development of practical bioethics educational materials. We begin with a background description and discussion of why local cases enhance bioethics education, move to an overview of what is currently available and what is not for the region, and then outline a discussion of what it means to be local using example cases drawn from Hong Kong, Australia, Pakistan, and Malaysia. We are not creating a casebook but rather constructing by example a toolbox for designing active and dynamic learning cases using regional diversity as contextualised cases with generalised principles. (shrink)

Despite recent advances in HIV prevention and treatment, high HIV incidence persists among people who inject drugs. Difficult legal and political environments and lack of services for PWID likely contribute to high HIV incidence. Some advocates question whether any HIV prevention research is ethically justified in settings where healthcare system fails to provide basic services to PWID and where implementation of research findings is fraught with political barriers. Ethical challenges in research with PWID include concern about whether research evidence will (...) be translated into practice; concerns that research might exacerbate background risks; and ethical challenges regarding the standard of HIV prevention in research. While these questions arise in other research settings, for research with PWID, these questions are especially controversial. This paper analyses four ethical questions in determining whether research could be ethically acceptable: Can researchers ensure that research does not add to the burden of social harms and poor health experienced by PWID? Should research be conducted in settings where it is uncertain whether research findings will be translated into practice? When best practices in prevention and care are not locally available, what standard of care and prevention is ethically appropriate? Does the conduct of research in settings with oppressive policies constitute complicity? We outline specific criteria to address these four ethical challenges. We also urge researchers to join the call to action for policy change to provide proven safe and effective HIV prevention and harm reduction interventions for PWID around the world. (shrink)

Despite recent advances in HIV prevention and treatment, high HIV incidence persists among people who inject drugs. Difficult legal and political environments and lack of services for PWID likely contribute to high HIV incidence. Some advocates question whether any HIV prevention research is ethically justified in settings where healthcare system fails to provide basic services to PWID and where implementation of research findings is fraught with political barriers. Ethical challenges in research with PWID include concern about whether research evidence will (...) be translated into practice; concerns that research might exacerbate background risks; and ethical challenges regarding the standard of HIV prevention in research. While these questions arise in other research settings, for research with PWID, these questions are especially controversial. This paper analyses four ethical questions in determining whether research could be ethically acceptable: Can researchers ensure that research does not add to the burden of social harms and poor health experienced by PWID? Should research be conducted in settings where it is uncertain whether research findings will be translated into practice? When best practices in prevention and care are not locally available, what standard of care and prevention is ethically appropriate? Does the conduct of research in settings with oppressive policies constitute complicity? We outline specific criteria to address these four ethical challenges. We also urge researchers to join the call to action for policy change to provide proven safe and effective HIV prevention and harm reduction interventions for PWID around the world. (shrink)

Little research has explored the possible effects of government institutions in emerging economies on ethical reviews of multinational research. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth telephone interviews with 15 researchers, Research Ethics Committees personnel, and a government agency member involved in multinational HIV Prevention Trials Network research in emerging economies. Ministries of Health or other government agencies often play pivotal roles as facilitators or barriers in the research ethics approval process. Government agency RECs reviewing protocols may face particular challenges, as they can (...) lack resources, be poorly organized, have inconsistent review processes and limited expertise, and use differing definitions of national interests, including upholding national reputation and avoiding potential exploitation and stigma of the country's population. The MOH/governmental review body may be affected by power dynamics and politics in study reviews; may consider issues both related and unrelated to research ethics as understood elsewhere; and may prioritize particular diseases, treatments, or interventions over other topics/types of research. Poor communication and deeply-rooted tensions may exist between sponsor and host countries, impeding optimal interactions and reviews. Investigators must understand and plan for the potential effects of governmental agencies on multinational collaborative research, including preserving adequate time for agency review, and contacting these agencies beforehand to address issues that may arise. Better understanding of these issues can aid and advance appropriate global scientific collaboration. (shrink)

Voluntariness of consent to research has not been sufficiently explored through empirical research. The aims of this study were to develop a more comprehensive approach to assessing voluntariness and to generate preliminary data on the extent and correlates of limitations on voluntariness. We developed a questionnaire to evaluate subjects’ reported motivations and constraints on voluntariness. 88 subjects in five different areas of clinical research—substance abuse, cancer, HIV, interventional cardiology, and depression—were assessed. Subjects reported a variety of motivations for participation. Offers (...) of financial incentives were common but not influential, pressures from others were rare, and no threats were reported. However, certain financial incentives and—paradoxically—altruistic motivations led some subjects to feel more constrained. Consistent with previous studies, no one pattern of motivation was common to all research subjects. There was little evidence of constrained voluntariness, but some suggestion of areas of concern. Voluntariness appears to be susceptible to systematic empirical investigation. (shrink)

We systematically examined the content of the websites of 46 agencies that buy and sell human eggs to understand how they market themselves to both donors and recipients. We found that these websites use marketing techniques that obscure the realities of egg donation, presenting egg donation as a mutually beneficial and fulfilling experience. Sites emphasize egg donors' emotional fulfillment and address recipients' anxieties by stressing the ability to find the perfect “fit” or “match”, suiting recipients’“preferences”/“desires”, and even designing/customizing a child. (...) Agencies attempt to create a sense of connection between the recipients and donors by reporting donors' personal characteristics — e.g., interests/hobbies, traits, mood/temperament, and self-reported childhood behavior/memories. Sites present donors as caring/generous and smart/successful/beautiful. These data, the first to examine several key aspects of egg donation agency websites, reveal critical aspects of how these companies communicate to prospective donors and recipients, raising several ethical concerns. Websites frame information in ways that may bias consumers, making emotional appeals that may distract from appropriate risk/benefit assessments and obscure the ethical challenges of egg donation. These data highlight needs for improved practices, adherence to guidelines, and consideration of enhanced guidelines or policy. (shrink)

Internet-based health research is increasing, and often offers financial incentives but fraudulent behavior by participants can result. Specifically, eligible or ineligible individuals may enter the study multiple times and receive undeserved financial compensation. We review past experiences and approaches to this problem and propose several new strategies. Researchers can detect and prevent Internet research fraud in four broad ways: through the questionnaire/instrument ; through participants' non-questionnaire data and seeking external validation through computer information,, and 4) through study design. These approaches (...) each have pros and cons, and raise ethical, legal, and logistical questions, given that ethical tensions can emerge between preserving the integrity of research vs. protecting the privacy and confidentiality of study respondents. While past discussions concerning the ethics of online research have tended to focus on the participants' ability to trust the researchers, needs now arise to examine researchers' abilities to trust the participants. This analysis has several critical implications for future practice, policy, and research. (shrink)

Genomic research—including whole genome sequencing and whole exome sequencing—has a growing presence in contemporary biomedical investigation. The capacity of sequencing techniques to generate results that go beyond the primary aims of the research—historically referred to as “incidental findings”—has generated considerable discussion as to how this information should be handled—that is, whether incidental results should be returned, and if so, which ones.Federal regulations governing most human subjects research in the United States require the disclosure of “the procedures to be followed” in (...) the research as part of the informed consent process. It seems reasonable to assume—and indeed, many commentators have concluded—that genomic investigators will be expected to inform participants about, among other procedures, the prospect that incidental findings will become available and the mechanisms for dealing with them. Investigators, most of whom will not have dealt with these issues before, will face considerable challenges in framing meaningful disclosures for research participants.To help in this task, we undertook to identify the elements that should be included in the informed consent process related to incidental findings. We did this by surveying a large number of genomic researchers (n = 241) and by conducting in‐depth interviews with a smaller number of researchers (n = 28) and genomic research participants (n = 20). Based on these findings, it seems clear to us that routine approaches to informed consent are not likely to be effective in genomic research in which the prospect of incidental findings exists. Ensuring that participants’ decisions are informed and meaningful will require innovative approaches to dealing with the consent issue. We have identified four prototypical models of a consent process for return of incidental findings. (shrink)

BackgroundCritical public health measures implemented to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have disrupted health research worldwide, including HIV prevention research. While general guidance has been issued for the responsible conduct of research in these challenging circumstances, the contours of the dueling COVID-19 and HIV/aids pandemics raise some critical ethical issues for HIV prevention research. In this paper, we use the recently updated HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) Ethics Guidance Document (EGD) to situate and analyze key (...) ethical challenges related to the conduct of HIV prevention research during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as identify potential areas for refinement of the guidance document based on this unprecedented state of affairs.Main bodyNecessary actions taken for HIV prevention research studies due to the COVID-19 pandemic involve an array of ethical issues including those related to: (1) risk mitigation; (2) behavior change; (3) compounding vulnerability; (4) community engagement; (5) trial reopening; and 6) shifting research priorities.ConclusionsIn the context of the dueling HIV and COVID-19 global pandemics, research teams and sponsors must be nimble in responding to the rapidly changing environment by being sensitive to the associated ethical issues. The HTPN EGD provides a rich set of tools to help identify, analyze and address many of these issues. At the same time, future refinements of the HPTN EGD and other research ethics guidance could be strengthened by providing explicit advice regarding the ethical issues associated with disrupted research and the reopening of studies. In addition, additional consideration should be given to appropriately balancing domains of risk (e.g., physical versus social), addressing the vulnerability of research staff and community partners, and responding to un-anticipatable ancillary care needs of participants and communities. Appropriately addressing these issues will necessitate conceptual work, which would benefit from the careful documentation of the actual ethical issues encountered in research, the strategies implemented to overcome them, and their success in doing so. Throughout all of these efforts, it is critical to remember that the HIV pandemic not be forgotten in the rush to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. (shrink)

In crafting our paper on addressing the ethical challenges in HIV prevention research with people who inject drugs,1 we had hoped to stimulate further discussion and deliberation about the topic. We are pleased that three commentaries on our paper have begun this process.2 3 4 The commentaries rightly bring up important issues relating to community engagement and problems in translating research into practice in the fraught environments in which PWID face multiple risks. These risks include acquisition of HIV as well (...) as criminalisation, stigma and lack of access to needed healthcare, prevention and social services. We take this opportunity to respond to the excellent points raised by the commentators. All of the commentaries support our emphasis on robust community engagement with PWID and other stakeholders in designing and conducting HIV prevention research, but urge us to go farther. Wolfe highlights the difficulty of even engaging with community members in oppressive settings, where authorities severely restrict civil liberties of PWID so that even discussing issues related to drug use and enforcement may place individuals at risk. To overcome such limitations, he appropriately suggests interviewing confidentially those who have previously been detained in closed settings as part of the community engagement process. Similarly, Wolfe observes that critical issues can be overlooked with a narrow focus on study procedures if contextual factors before, during or after a study are ignored. For example, he cites the risk of overdose for study participants who have been abstinent during a study and subsequently resume injecting when the study concludes. These kinds of risks may not be obvious …. (shrink)

In crafting our paper on addressing the ethical challenges in HIV prevention research with people who inject drugs, 1 we had hoped to stimulate further discussion and deliberation about the topic. We are pleased that three commentaries on our paper have begun this process. 2 3 4 The commentaries rightly bring up important issues relating to community engagement and problems in translating research into practice in the fraught environments in which PWID face multiple risks. These risks include acquisition of HIV (...) as well as criminalisation, stigma and lack of access to needed healthcare, prevention and social services. We take this opportunity to respond to the excellent points raised by the commentators. All of the commentaries support our emphasis on robust community engagement with PWID and other stakeholders in designing and conducting HIV prevention research, but urge us to go farther. Wolfe highlights the... (shrink)

Reply to a commentary by Felicitas Holzer and Ignacio Mastroleoon “Models of Consent to Return of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research.”.