Artificial Intelligence (AI) in a Time of Pandemics: Developing Options for the Ethical Governance of COVID-19 AI Applications

This chapter analyses the various applications of artificial intelligence (AI) developed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and examines the range of ethical questions that their multi-level deployment may raise. Within this frame, the author sheds light on the challenges posed by the fast-tracking authorization of some of the AI systems and pays particular attention to the form and shape that ‘emergency response’ in the field of ethics has taken in order to cope with these extraordinary challenges and the ethical practices that have been developed thus far. The chapter will also provide a detailed set of policy suggestions to overcome these challenges with a special focus on the need to develop an emergency ethics framework that will allow policy-makers to authorize the deployment of AI-powered tools in a responsible and trustworthy manner. © 2022, The Author(s).

Governance frameworks for COVID-19 research ethics review and oversight in Latin America: An exploratory study

Background: Research has been an essential part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, including in Latin American (LA) countries. However, implementing research in emergency settings poses the challenge of producing valuable knowledge rapidly while upholding research ethical standards. Research ethics committees (RECs) therefore must conduct timely and rigorous ethics reviews and oversight of COVID-19 research. In the LA region, there is limited knowledge on how countries have responded to this need. To address this gap, the objective of our project is to explore if LA countries developed policies to streamline ethics review and oversight of research in response to the pandemic while ensuring its adherence to ethical standards, and to analyze to what extent these governance frameworks are in accordance with international guidance. Methods: We conducted a descriptive and exploratory study assessing the COVID-19 research ethics governance frameworks of 19 LA countries, considering 4 dimensions based on international COVID-19 ethics guidance documents: (i) ethics review organizational model adopted, (ii) measures to coordinate between RECs and other research stakeholders, (iii) operational guidance for RECs, and (iv) key ethical issues for review and oversight of COVID-19 research. Results: 10 out of 19 LA countries have some policy to streamline ethics review of COVID-19 research. Of these countries only 6 issued comprehensive documents following international guidance that contemplate strategies with recommendations for concrete actions for a timely and rigorous review. Conclusion: LA countries adopted partial strategies and operational guidance that may demonstrate a lack of a comprehensive view of research ethics for the review and oversight of COVID-19 research. Continuing efforts should be directed to strengthen LA countries' research capacity to respond timely and ethically to future health emergencies. Past lessons and the ones from this pandemic should be the basis to develop international standards and operational guidelines for ethics review and oversight of any research for public health emergencies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies: A joint HRA/WHO workshop.

This report of a joint World Health Organization (WHO) and United Kingdom (UK) Health Research Authority (HRA) workshop discusses the ethics review of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies, undertaken in the midst of the pandemic. It reviews the early efforts of international and national institutions to define the ethical standards required for COVID-19 human challenge studies and create the frameworks to ensure rigorous and timely review of these studies. This report evaluates the utility of the WHO's international guidance document Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies (WHO Key Criteria) as a practical resource for the ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies. It also assesses the UK HRA's approach to these complex ethics reviews, including the formation of a Specialist Ad-Hoc Research Ethics Committee (REC) for COVID-19 Human Challenge Studies to review all current and future COVID-19 human challenge studies. In addition, the report outlines the reflections of REC members and researchers regarding the ethics review process of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies. Finally, it considers the potential ongoing scientific justification for COVID-19 human challenge studies, particularly in relation to next-generation vaccines and optimisation of vaccination schedules. Overall, there was broad agreement that the WHO Key Criteria represented an international consensus document that played a powerful role in setting norms and delineating the necessary conditions for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies. Workshop members suggested that the WHO Key Criteria could be practically implemented to support researchers and ethics reviewers, including in the training of ethics committee members. In future, a wider audience may be engaged by the original document and potential additional materials, informed by the experiences of those involved in the first COVID-19 human challenge studies outlined in this document.

Governance frameworks for COVID-19 research ethics review and oversight in Latin America: an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Research has been an essential part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, including in Latin American (LA) countries. However, implementing research in emergency settings poses the challenge of producing valuable knowledge rapidly while upholding research ethical standards. Research ethics committees (RECs) therefore must conduct timely and rigorous ethics reviews and oversight of COVID-19 research. In the LA region, there is limited knowledge on how countries have responded to this need. To address this gap, the objective of our project is to explore if LA countries developed policies to streamline ethics review and oversight of research in response to the pandemic while ensuring its adherence to ethical standards, and to analyze to what extent these governance frameworks are in accordance with international guidance. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive and exploratory study assessing the COVID-19 research ethics governance frameworks of 19 LA countries, considering 4 dimensions based on international COVID-19 ethics guidance documents: (i) ethics review organizational model adopted, (ii) measures to coordinate between RECs and other research stakeholders, (iii) operational guidance for RECs, and (iv) key ethical issues for review and oversight of COVID-19 research. RESULTS: 10 out of 19 LA countries have some policy to streamline ethics review of COVID-19 research. Of these countries only 6 issued comprehensive documents following international guidance that contemplate strategies with recommendations for concrete actions for a timely and rigorous review. CONCLUSION: LA countries adopted partial strategies and operational guidance that may demonstrate a lack of a comprehensive view of research ethics for the review and oversight of COVID-19 research. Continuing efforts should be directed to strengthen LA countries' research capacity to respond timely and ethically to future health emergencies. Past lessons and the ones from this pandemic should be the basis to develop international standards and operational guidelines for ethics review and oversight of any research for public health emergencies.

Perspectives of research ethics committee members on human challenge studies in the development of vaccines against COVID-19: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines are considered the most effective protection against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Human Challenge Studies can help to shorten the development process of vaccines. The reviewers' opinions from research ethics committees (REC) play an essential gate-keeping role in determining whether a clinical trial can be conducted or not. METHODS: A convergent mixed-methods study was conducted in a leading general hospital in China. A total of 58 REC members from the institution were invited to participate in an online questionnaire survey. According to the result of the quantitative survey, 15 of these REC members were purposefully selected to participate in qualitative interviews further. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistical techniques, and thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. Findings from the quantitative and qualitative analyses were synthesized to deeply illustrate the attitudes, views, and suggestions of REC members on human challenge studies to develop COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: The response rate of the online questionnaire was 62% (36/58), and 15 of the respondents were interviewed. All participants deemed that the human challenge study should provide compensation to its participants and that sufficiently informed consent is necessary. The human challenge study was disagreed with by 38.9% of participants. The key points of concern raised were representativeness and fairness of participant selection, benefit, and risk, vulnerable groups, compensation to participants, informed consent, and general view on human challenge studies. CONCLUSIONS: Human challenge studies helped accelerate the development of vaccines for disease control to a certain extent, but the bottom line of medical ethics should not have been broken. At any time, the rights and interests of research participants should come first.

Research in the Time of COVID-19: Challenges of Research Ethics Committees.

Compliance with ethics guidelines for research are even more critical in the time of emergency public health situations such as a pandemic. Underpinned by the principles laid out in the 1979 Belmont report, conduct of research at any time should focus on respect for persons, beneficence and justice. Certain Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in research ethics committees may be revised to provide a quicker turn-around and timely review. Key elements in effective review of studies include rigorousness, responsiveness and timeliness. It is crucial to recognize that ethics review committees share responsibility with researchers and its institutions, funding agencies and regulatory agencies for upholding ethical principles in research at all times.