Holding the Guardrails on Involuntary Commitment.

In response to the increasing number of mentally ill people experiencing homelessness, some policy-makers have called for the expanded use of involuntary commitment, even for individuals who are not engaging in behaviors that are immediately life-threatening. Yet there is no evidence that involuntary commitment offers long-term benefits, and significant reasons to believe that expanding the practice will cause harm. In addition, these proposals ignore research showing that most people with mental illness have the capacity to make medical decisions for themselves. Rather than expanding the use of involuntary commitment, policy-makers should support approaches proven to decrease the prevalence of homelessness, such as supportive housing. In addition, states should reevaluate their commitment standards for persons who pose no risk of harm to others. One promising approach is Northern Ireland's Mental Health Capacity Act of 2016, which establishes a uniform standard for imposing nonconsensual health care interventions, without any distinction between mental illnesses and other conditions in which capacity might be compromised.

Steps toward a System of IRB Precedent: Piloting Approaches to Summarizing IRB Decisions for Future Use.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency and lack of transparency in decision-making, problems that undermine both trust in their ability to protect human research participants and respect for their decisions among researchers. The absence of robust documentation of their decisions and the inability or unwillingness to share those decisions together represent a missed opportunity for IRBs to learn from one another and advance debates about challenging ethical issues. The concept of IRB precedent, modeled upon the system of legal precedent, has been proposed as a potential solution to these problems. In theory, an IRB faced with a review decision could look back at previous IRB decisions, either its own or those of other boards, made in similar studies or circumstances to guide the present decision. Some IRBs attempt this informally within their institution, but few examples of a structured system of IRB precedent have been described in the literature, and none has been widely adopted. This article describes a pilot project to summarize IRB decisions in a way that could facilitate their use as precedent by creating a documentation tool that meets four criteria-comprehensiveness, validity, searchability, and efficiency. Though this process turned out to be more challenging than expected, we identified key features of such a tool that holds promise for future development and could promote more consistent, robust IRB decision-making and advance discourse in human research ethics.

Rethinking the Regulatory Triggers for Prospective Ethics Review.

Under the Common Rule, federally-supported activities involving human participants are presumptively required to undergo prospective ethics review if they are "designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge." However, the "generalizable knowledge" standard is inherently ambiguous; moreover, it is both over- and under-inclusive of the type of activities that warrant prospective ethical oversight. Rather than conditioning prospective ethics review on an ethically irrelevant criterion like the generalizable knowledge standard, this article proposes that prior ethics review should be required when some individuals are exposed to greater-than-minimal risks for the potential benefit of others, at least when the activity in question is conducted or supported by federal agencies. Under such an approach, the fact that an activity constitutes research would be neither necessary nor sufficient to trigger prospective ethical oversight.

Reining in IRB Review in the Revised Common Rule.

The revised Common Rule contains several changes designed to reduce the time institutional review boards (IRBs) spend on overseeing low-risk studies, including an expansion of the categories of research that are exempt from the regulations and a list of specific activities that do not satisfy the regulatory definition of "research." While these changes go a long way toward the goal of reducing unnecessarily regulatory burden, they leave several important questions about IRB jurisdiction unresolved.  The most significant omission is the failure to address when IRB review is necessary for quality assurance activities.  In addition, the revised Common Rule's distinction between "research" and "public health surveillance" may prove to be unworkable as applied to some types of public health activities.  Many of these interpretive questions stem from the inherent ambiguities in the regulatory definition of research, which turns on whether an activity is "designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge." Because the revised Common Rule does not alter this basic definition, difficult questions about the circumstances in which IRB review is required are likely to remain.

Improving the Quality of Host Country Ethical Oversight of International Research: The Use of a Collaborative 'Pre-Review' Mechanism for a Study of Fexinidazole for Human African Trypanosomiasis.

Developing countries face numerous barriers to conducting effective and efficient ethics reviews of international collaborative research. In addition to potentially overlooking important scientific and ethical considerations, inadequate or insufficiently trained ethics committees may insist on unwarranted changes to protocols that can impair a study's scientific or ethical validity. Moreover, poorly functioning review systems can impose substantial delays on the commencement of research, which needlessly undermine the development of new interventions for urgent medical needs. In response to these concerns, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi), an independent nonprofit organization founded by a coalition of public sector and international organizations, developed a mechanism to facilitate more effective and efficient host country ethics review for a study of the use of fexinidazole for the treatment of late stage African Trypanosomiasis (HAT). The project involved the implementation of a novel 'pre-review' process of ethical oversight, conducted by an ad hoc committee of ethics committee representatives from African and European countries, in collaboration with internationally recognized scientific experts. This article examines the process and outcomes of this collaborative process.

Toward evidence-based conflicts of interest training for physician-investigators.

The increased focus in recent years on the risks posed by conflicts of interest arising from financial relationships between physician-investigators and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries has led to a variety of measures that can broadly be described as "regulatory" interventions, including new federal and state laws, criminal prosecutions and private lawsuits, requirements attached to government funding, and institutional policies. Studies suggest, however, that physician-investigators have not internalized the message that financial conflicts of interest have the potential to influence their decision making. Simply informing physician-investigators of the content of relevant rules and the consequences of noncompliance - as appears to be the practice in many existing compliance training activities - is unlikely to lead to lasting changes in norms or behavior. Instead, we theorize that, for trainings to be maximally effective, they must appeal to the complex intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that contribute to individuals' willingness to comply with regulatory mandates. In addition, physician-investigators' beliefs that the risks posed by conflicts of interest do not apply to them need to be challenged. Rigorous evaluation of the newly-designed training programs will help determine whether these theories are borne out in fact.

Vulnerability as a regulatory category in human subject research.

This article examines and critiques the use of the term "vulnerability" in U.S. and international regulations and guidelines on research ethics. After concluding that the term is currently used in multiple, often inconsistent, senses, it calls on regulators to differentiate between three distinct types of vulnerability: "consent-based vulnerability,""risk-based vulnerability," and "justice-based vulnerability."

How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review.

BACKGROUND: Countries are increasingly devoting significant resources to creating or strengthening research ethics committees, but there has been insufficient attention to assessing whether these committees are actually improving the protection of human research participants. DISCUSSION: Research ethics committees face numerous obstacles to achieving their goal of improving research participant protection. These include the inherently amorphous nature of ethics review, the tendency of regulatory systems to encourage a focus on form over substance, financial and resource constraints, and conflicts of interest. Auditing and accreditation programs can improve the quality of ethics review by encouraging the development of standardized policies and procedures, promoting a common base of knowledge, and enhancing the status of research ethics committees within their own institutions. However, these mechanisms focus largely on questions of structure and process and are therefore incapable of answering many critical questions about ethics committees' actual impact on research practices. The first step in determining whether research ethics committees are achieving their intended function is to identify what prospective research participants and their communities hope to get out of the ethics review process. Answers to this question can help guide the development of effective outcomes assessment measures. It is also important to determine whether research ethics committees' guidance to investigators is actually being followed. Finally, the information developed through outcomes assessment must be disseminated to key decision-makers and incorporated into practice. This article offers concrete suggestions for achieving these goals. CONCLUSION: Outcomes assessment of research ethics committees should address the following questions: First, does research ethics committee review improve participants' understanding of the risks and potential benefits of studies? Second, does the process affect prospective participants' decisions about whether to participate in research? Third, does it change participants' subjective experiences in studies or their attitudes about research? Fourth, does it reduce the riskiness of research? Fifth, does it result in more research responsive to the local community's self-identified needs? Sixth, is research ethics committees' guidance to researchers actually being followed?