Nippon Medical School's Ethical Review Processes for Studies Involving Human Subjects.

All life science and medical research involving human subjects must be conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the relevant laws and guidelines. Additionally, its scientific and ethical suitability must be reviewed by a committee well versed in the nature and content of the research. Failure to comply with these requirements when conducting research involving human subjects is a serious violation of Japanese laws, guidelines, and local regulations, so several ethics committees and institutional review boards have been established within the Nippon Medical School (NMS) Foundation and its affiliated institutions. It is essential for investigators to keep up to date with the latest developments in the ethical review process and to ensure that any projects they propose to embark on are subjected to an appropriate ethical review before the research is initiated. To help researchers and other staff affiliated with the NMS Foundation keep abreast of these developments, this report outlines NMS's current ethical review processes for research involving human subjects.

A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt's new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients. METHODS: We conducted a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws. RESULTS: On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones. CONCLUSION: The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond.

Ethically cleared to launch?

Rules are needed for human research in commercial spaceflight.

Com Ciência e Com Respeito: episódio 24

Neste sétimo especial sobre a Cartilha dos Direitos dos Participantes de Pesquisa, vamos falar sobre o direito dos Participantes de Pesquisa aos benefícios da pesquisa. Vem com a gente!

Com Ciência e Com Respeito: episódio 16

Neste quarto especial sobre a Cartilha dos Direitos dos Participantes de Pesquisa, vamos falar sobre os direitos à assistência e à indenização.

Ética y jurisprudencia administrativa de los derechos de los sujetos de investigación en pandemia (COVID-19): función de los comités éticos científicos: Chile / Ethics and administrative jurisprudence of the rights of subjects of research in pandemic (COVID-19): role of the scientific ethics committees: Chile

RESUMEN: Todo gobierno debe reaccionar rápida y efectivamente ante cualquier pandemia, Chile no es la excepción y apoyado en el estado de Excepción Constitucional, ha tenido que implementar medidas que podrían involucrar poca información sobre las percepciones de las personas y las reacciones durante la implementación de las restricciones. Las instituciones internacionales de salud han determinado que es un deber moral realizar investigaciones que generen evidencia que promuevan y mejoren la atención de la salud y la mitigación de la pandemia, instando a reducir los "obstáculos" prácticos de la revisión ética. Los objetivos de este trabajo fueron analizar desde las perspectivas de las consideraciones éticas y jurídicas, el rol que cumplen los Comités Éticos Científicos en el manejo y la protección de las personas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. La metodología de trabajo se basó en la recolección de la información de Instituciones nacionales e internacionales de Salud y luego analizarla según la jurisprudencia administrativa del gobierno de Chile. Se concluye que los cambios de criterios que deben observar los CECs en el proceso de revisión de los protocolos de los proyectos de investigación científica, deben velar por proteger los derechos de los pacientes y sujetos de investigación en cuanto puede involucrar información sensible, más aún, si se consideran las graves consecuencias de su transgresión, dar un sentido distinto al que corresponda a las normas sobre derechos de pacientes, puede resultar en "falta de servicio" y eventual vulneración en los derechos del sujeto de investigación. La labor de los CEC, debe realizarse siempre desde una interpretación restrictiva, reconociendo la función pública que cumplen como parte integrante de la labor ética encomendada por el legislador al efecto.

SUMMARY: Every government must react quickly and effectively to any pandemic, Chile is no exception and supported by the state of Constitutional Exception, it has had to implement measures that could involve little information about people's perceptions and reactions during the implementation of the restrictions. International health institutions have determined that it is a moral duty to carry out research that generates evidence that promotes and improves health care and the mitigation of the pandemic, urging to reduce the practical "obstacles" to ethical review. The objective of this study was to analyze from the perspectives of ethical and legal considerations, the role that Scientific Ethics Committees play in the management and protection of people during the COVID-19 pandemic. The methodology used was based on collecting information from national and international Health Institutions and then analyzing it according to the administrative jurisprudence of the Chilean government. It is concluded that the changes in criteria that the CECs must observe in the process of reviewing the protocols of scientific research projects, must ensure the protection of the rights of patients and research subjects insofar as it may involve sensitive information, even more if the serious consequences of its transgression are considered. Giving a different meaning to the one that corresponds may result in "lack of service" and eventual violation of the rights of the research subject. The task of the CEC, must always be carried out from a restrictive interpretation, recognizing the public function that they fulfill as an integral part of the ethical work entrusted by the legislators to that effect.

[Compensation of damage in cancerology]. / Réparation du dommage en cancérologie.

In a few situations, the consequences secondary to a carcinological pathology require an assessment of damages for compensatory purposes. This is particularly the case when liable parties have been found to be at cause of the disease: occupational pathologies in the case of inexcusable employer's fault, exposure to a radioactive risk, for example in the context of full compensation for damages suffered by the victims of nuclear experiments performed by France, or lastly, in the after-effects of late diagnosis. This article does not discuss the imputability of cancer pathologies to an event, but it proposes an adaptation of methods for assessing damages, in an attempt to provide full compensation for damages.

Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies: Report of a WHO Working Group.

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable.

SARS-CoV-2 controlled human infection models: Ethics, challenge agent production and regulatory issues.

This second International Alliance for Biological Standardization COVID-19 webinar brought together a broad range of international stakeholders, including academia, regulators, funders and industry, with a considerable participation from low- and middle-income countries, to discuss the use of controlled human infection models to accelerate development and market authorization assessment of a vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Institutional Review Board Quality, Private Equity, and Promoting Ethical Human Subjects Research.

Evaluating the quality and effectiveness of the institutional review boards (IRBs) responsible for overseeing research involving human participants is critically important but perpetually challenging. Seemingly common-sense measures, such as the number of proposals approved with and without major modifications and the number of unexpected adverse events occurring in approved protocols, can be misleading indicators of participant protection, and regulatory compliance may not correspond to achieving ethical goals. These measurement challenges make it difficult to assess the validity of concerns about different IRB models. A group of U.S. senators recently raised questions about the increasing use of for-profit IRBs to review research proposals (as opposed to boards typically housed at academic medical centers and health care institutions) and, more specifically, about the growing trend of private equity ownership and consolidation of for-profit IRBs. Although all IRBs face pressure to speed reviews and none are entirely free of conflicts of interest, the private equity model is particularly susceptible to approaches that could undercut the ethical mission of IRBs to protect and promote the rights and welfare of research participants. Ideally, the quality of board oversight could be measured directly, rather than relying on the heuristic of board type; this article describes several current efforts toward this goal. In the meantime, one improvement may be to pursue a new model of IRB oversight: independent nonprofit boards that stand apart from research institutions, take advantage of business approaches to research review, and minimize conflicts of interest.

Consent and Privacy in the Era of Precision Medicine and Biobanking Genomic Data.

"Big Data represents a challenge that points to the need for collective and political approaches to self-protection rather than solely individual, atomistic approaches."- Anita Allen, "Protecting One's Own Privacy in a Big Data Economy".

Informed consent procedures in patients with an acute inability to provide informed consent: Policy and practice in the CENTER-TBI study.

PURPOSE: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice. METHODS: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries. RESULTS: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N = 426;20%) and deferred consent (N = 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%). CONCLUSIONS: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers.

Human challenge trial workshop: Focus on quality requirements for challenge agents, Langen, Germany, October 22, 2019.

Controlled human infection models can be helpful to study pathogenesis and immune responses as a basis for the development of vaccines. In controlled human infection models, human challenge agents are used to infect healthy volunteers, therefore, ethical considerations include that the exposure studies need to be safe and results should be meaningful, e.g. contribute to a better cure. Both in the US and in Europe, the level of Good Manufacturing Practice required is related to the phase of the study ('sliding scale Good Manufacturing Practice'), and, hence, is much more open to speedy drug development than anticipated. Recommendations included: the development of guidelines for human challenge agents; a focus on strain selection, in particular with regard to strain infectivity, stability and purity; the use of whole genome sequencing; a reference repository of challenge agents, the need for early exchange with regulators to ensure acceptability of strain selection and manufacturing for later drug development; sharing of models and challenge agents.

There Oughta Be a Law: When Does(n't) the U.S. Common Rule Apply?

Using mobile health (mHealth) research as an extended example, this article provides an overview of when the Common Rule "applies" to a variety of activities, what might be meant when one says that the Common Rule does or does not "apply," the extent to which these different meanings of "apply" matter, and, when the Common Rule does apply (however that term is defined), how it applies.

Mobile Research Applications and State Research Laws.

This article assesses the protections provided by state research laws for participants in mobile application (mobile app) mediated health research conducted by independent scientists, citizen scientists, and patient researchers. Prior scholarship in this area focuses on the lack of application of: (1) federal regulations governing research conducted or funded by one of sixteen signatory federal departments and agencies (the Common Rule); and (2) separate federal regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration applicable to research conducted in anticipation of a submission to the FDA for approval of a drug or medical device. This article builds on this prior scholarship by carefully examining state research laws and suggesting ways in which these laws could be improved to better protect participants of mobile appmediated research conducted by independent scientists, citizen scientists, and patient researchers.

How Should Organizations Respond to Repeated Noncompliance by Prominent Researchers?

This article considers a case in which a prominent researcher repeatedly made protocol deviations year after year while the institutional review board and university leadership failed to adequately address his continuing noncompliance. This article argues that, in addition to reporting this researcher's pattern of noncompliance to the Office for Human Research Protections, as required by federal regulations, the university should implement a remedial action plan.