Oversight of Dual-Use Research: What Role for Ethics Committees?

The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Guidance Framework for the Responsible Use of the Life Sciences addresses the governance of biorisks, including dual-use research, for countries. It emphasizes engaging multisectoral stakeholders such as governments, scientific bodies, health and research institutes, standard-setting organizations, funding bodies, and others. Ethics constitutes a key component of the framework. Given the high social impact of such research and the importance of trust, risk, and benefit, national ethics committees could make a valuable contribution by providing ethical guidance in the decisionmaking process. The purpose of this study was to examine the role of national ethics committees in the context of governance and oversight of dual-use research at the national level. We conducted a landscape analysis of the activities of ethics committees in dual-use research oversight. We also searched the WHO database on National Ethics Committees for publications related to dual-use research and/or misuse of life sciences research and gathered additional documentation from national ethics committees websites and through author contacts. Results showed that in the context of the wide range of oversight mechanisms for dual-use research in countries, national ethics committees have contributed to guiding policy and assessing dual-use research risks in only a limited number of countries. Recommendations from those countries include establishing a multistakeholder, coordinated oversight mechanism at the country level; strengthening international linkages to guide, harmonize, and reinforce national and international efforts; and involving ethics committees as an expert resource in the governance and oversight process.

Mindfulness as a therapeutic option for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a prevalent mental health issue characterized by intrusive thoughts (obsessions) and repetitive behaviors (compulsions) that can cause significant life impairment. Despite cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) being the most effective treatment, some individuals experience insufficient symptom reduction or relapse. AREAS COVERED: This special report explores the potential of mindfulness-based interventions as complementary treatments for OCD, examining the specific techniques used and their practical application. In the initial section, the authors examine ten randomized control trial studies included in the meta-analysis conducted by Chien et al. (2022), demonstrating the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions. The authors focus on elucidating the specific mindfulness techniques used in these studies. Then, the authors discuss the integration of these mindfulness strategies into CBT, focusing on enhancing emotional regulation, cognitive flexibility, and acceptance of intrusive thoughts. EXPERT OPINION: While mindful based interventions (MBIs) show promise as adjunctive treatments for OCD, variability in OCD symptoms and treatment responses necessitate individualized therapeutic approaches. Further research is required to refine mindfulness-based techniques and optimize their effectiveness. Incorporating MBIs into standard CBT protocols may improve outcomes for patients with persistent OCD symptoms.

Although obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a serious mental health problem, it can be effectively treated with psychotherapy. One such treatment is called mindfulness-based therapy. It teaches people to be aware of their thoughts without judging them. This can help reduce the obsessions and compulsions that come with OCD. Research shows that mindfulness therapy can be helpful for OCD, but there are many different ways to do it. We need to study more to understand how it works. OCD is different for everyone, so we suggest personalized treatments that fit each person's needs. Instead of using one-size-fits-all approaches, we should focus on what works best for each person. This could make OCD treatment better and give hope to those dealing with this challenging condition.

Preparing ethical review systems for emergencies: next steps.

Ethical review systems need to build on their experiences of COVID-19 research to enhance their preparedness for future pandemics. Recommendations from representatives from over twenty countries include: improving relationships across the research ecosystem; demonstrating willingness to reform and adapt systems and processes; and making the case robustly for better resourcing.

Ethical implications of economic compensation for voluntary medical male circumcision for HIV prevention and epidemic control.

Despite tremendous efforts in fighting HIV over the last decades, the estimated annual number of new infections is still a staggering 1.5 million. There is evidence that voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) provides protection against men's heterosexual acquisition of HIV-1 infection. Despite good progress, most countries implementing VMMC for HIV prevention programmes are challenged to reach VMMC coverage rates of 90%. Particularly for men older than 25 years, a low uptake has been reported. Consequently, there is a need to identify, study and implement interventions that could increase the uptake of VMMC. Loss of income and incurred transportation costs have been reported as major barriers to uptake of VMMC. In response, it has been suggested to use economic compensation in order to increase VMMC uptake. In this discussion paper, we present and review relevant arguments and concerns to inform decision-makers about the ethical implications of using economic compensation, and to provide a comprehensive basis for policy and project-related discussions and decisions.

Taking stock of the availability and functions of National Ethics Committees worldwide.

BACKGROUND: National Ethics Committees (NECs) offer important oversight and guidance functions and facilitate public debate on bioethical issues. In an increasingly globalized world where technological advances, multi-national research collaborations, and pandemics are creating ethical dilemmas that transcend national borders, coordination and the joining of efforts among NECs are key. The purpose of this study is to take stock of the current NEC landscape, their varying roles and missions, and the range of bioethical topics on which they deliberated since their inception. METHODS: Data on the availability, functions, and ethical deliberations (publications) of NECs globally were gathered through a systematic search of NEC websites and through contacts known to the authors. The search was conducted in English, French, and Spanish. The data abstraction was done in Excel and included the NEC's country, region, functions, and deliberations on bioethical issues. Deliberation topics were classified into thematic categories through an iterative process of regrouping to arrive at the main set of themes. RESULTS: 124 NECs in 100 countries were identified. 44% of the NECs are in Europe and 47% are in high-income countries. Out of the 1108 retrieved publications, 40% were on bioethics in the context of research, followed by the clinic (28%) and public health issues (22%). The top five topics of these publications were: research ethics (124; 9%), genetics and genomics (62; 6%), organ transplantation (58; 5%), assisted reproductive technology (49; 4%), and end of life (36; 3%). CONCLUSION: Our study makes an important contribution to understanding the current interests and functions of NECs and the range of their bioethics deliberations. By making the data publicly available through this publication, it allows users to conduct tailored analyses and queries based on their interests, and to seek and strengthen collaboration and exchange. It also makes the case for the fruitfulness of developing and maintaining a global repository of current and new deliberations to more effectively advance this field for the greater good of humanity, research, and public health.

A survey of national ethics and bioethics committees.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the current state of national ethics committees and the challenges they face. METHODS: We surveyed national ethics committees between 30 January and 21 February 2018. FINDINGS: In total, representatives of 87 of 146 national ethics committees (59.6%) participated. The 84 countries covered were in all World Bank income categories and all World Health Organization regions. Many national ethics committees lack resources and face challenges in several domains, like independence, funding or efficacy. Only 40.2% (35/87) of committees expressed no concerns about independence. Almost a quarter (21/87) of committees did not make any ethics recommendations to their governments in 2017, and the median number of reports, opinions or recommendations issued was only two per committee Seventy-two (82.7%) national ethics committees included a philosopher or a bioethicist. CONCLUSION: National ethics (or bioethics) committees provide recommendations and guidance to governments and the public, thereby ensuring that public policies are informed by ethical concerns. Although the task is seemingly straightforward, implementation reveals numerous difficulties. Particularly in times of great uncertainty, such as during the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, governments would be well advised to base their actions not only on technical considerations but also on the ethical guidance provided by a national ethics committee. We found that, if the advice of national ethics committees is to matter, they must be legally mandated, independent, diverse in membership, transparent and sufficiently funded to be effective and visible.

Immunity certification for COVID-19: ethical considerations.

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights.

Les restrictions imposées dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ont eu de lourdes conséquences économiques, sociales et sanitaires. Certains pays ont envisagé la mise en place d'une stratégie visant à alléger ces restrictions pour les individus guéris en leur octroyant un document communément appelé «passeport d'immunité¼. Ce document atteste qu'ils ont développé une immunité protectrice contre le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SARS-CoV-2), le virus à l'origine de la COVID-19. L'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a déconseillé l'usage du certificat d'immunité pour l'instant, car l'incertitude demeure quant à l'existence réelle d'une immunité à long terme pour ceux qui se sont remis de la COVID-19. En outre, la fiabilité des tests sérologiques censés déterminer si l'individu est immunisé n'est pas avérée. Un tel certificat ne peut être instauré que si les seuils scientifiques en matière d'immunité sont respectés, qu'ils soient fondés sur les anticorps ou sur d'autres critères. Néanmoins, même si le certificat d'immunité est désormais bien accepté par la science, il s'accompagne de nombreuses questions d'ordre éthique en ce qui concerne la limitation des libertés individuelles et la mise en œuvre. Dans le présent document, nous examinons les principales considérations à prendre en compte pour garantir l'acceptabilité éthique du certificat d'immunité visant à lever les mesures de restriction pour certaines personnes durant la pandémie de COVID-19. Cette acceptabilité éthique dépend non seulement de son degré de conformité à des critères scientifiques stricts, mais aussi de son usage, des objectifs politiques ainsi que des mesures mises en place pour atténuer les préjudices potentiels et éviter d'imposer une charge disproportionnée sur les individus dépourvus de certificat, ou de bafouer les droits et libertés de tout un chacun.

Las medidas restrictivas impuestas a causa de la pandemia de la enfermedad coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) han tenido graves efectos sociales, económicos y sanitarios. Algunos países han considerado la posibilidad de utilizar la certificación de inmunidad como estrategia para flexibilizar dichas medidas para las personas que se han recuperado de la infección mediante la expedición a dichas personas de un documento, comúnmente denominado pasaporte de inmunidad. Este documento certifica que han desarrollado inmunidad protectora contra el coronavirus-2 del síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), el virus que causa la COVID-19. La Organización Mundial de la Salud ha desaconsejado la aplicación de la certificación de la inmunidad en la actualidad debido a la incertidumbre sobre si existe realmente una inmunidad a largo plazo para quienes se han recuperado de la COVID-19 y a las preocupaciones sobre la fiabilidad del método de prueba serológica propuesto para determinar la inmunidad. La certificación de la inmunidad solo puede considerarse si se cumplen los umbrales científicos para asegurar la inmunidad, ya sea que se basen en anticuerpos o en otros criterios. Sin embargo, incluso si la certificación de la inmunidad llegara a estar bien respaldada por la ciencia, tiene muchas cuestiones éticas en cuanto a las diferentes restricciones de las libertades individuales y su proceso de aplicación. Examinamos las principales consideraciones sobre la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de la inmunidad para eximir a los individuos de las medidas restrictivas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. Además de necesitar cumplir criterios científicos sólidos, la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de inmunidad depende de sus usos y objetivos de política y de las medidas que se apliquen para reducir los posibles daños y evitar que se impongan cargas desproporcionadas a las personas que no cuenten con dicha certificación y se violen las libertades y derechos individuales.

Improving assent in health research: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Enrolment in a research study requires the participant's informed consent. In the case of minors, informed consent of the respective legal guardian is obtained in conjunction with informed assent of the underage p articipant. Since comprehension of the information provided may be limited, effective interventions to improve understanding should be identified. Thus, it is the objective of this study to review quantitative studies that tested interventions to improve the understanding of information provided during assent processes in health research. The studied population consisted of minors that participated or were willing to participate in research. The primary outcome was the level of comprehension after intervention. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in eleven databases including regional databases: PubMed, Web of Science, ERIC, PsycINFO, CINAHL, POPLINE, AIM, LILACS, WPRIM, IMSEAR, and IMEMR and included references from inception of the database until July 2018 except PubMed which spanned the period from May 2013 to July 2018. Search terms focused on Informed Consent/Assent, Minors, and Comprehension. To complement the search, reference lists of retrieved publications were additionally searched. We included all quantitative studies that were conducted in minors, tested an intervention, covered assent processes in health research, and assessed comprehension. One reviewer screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts to determine eligibility and collected data on study design, population, intervention, methods, outcome, and for critical appraisal. Interventions comprised enhanced paper forms, interspersed questions, multimedia format, and others. RESULTS: Out of 7089 studies initially identified, 19 studies comprising 2805 participants and conducted in seven countries were included in the review. Fourteen studies (74 %) tested an intervention against control and ten (53 %) were randomized controlled trials. Heterogeneous methodology as well as incomplete outcome and statistical reporting impaired the reliability of the collected data. Positive effects were suggested for use of enhanced paper forms, interspersed questions, use of pie charts, and organizational factors. CONCLUSIONS: Improving assent in health research is an under-researched area with little reliable evidence. While some interventions are proposed to improve understanding in assent processes, further investigation is necessary to be able to give evidence-based recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: 106808.

Beyond Research Ethics: Novel Approaches of 3 Major Public Health Institutions to Provide Ethics Input on Public Health Practice Activities.

Public health institutions increasingly realize the importance of creating a culture in their organizations that values ethics. When developing strategies to strengthen ethics, institutions will have to take into account that while public health research projects typically undergo thorough ethics review, activities considered public health practice may not be subjected to similar oversight. This approach, based on a research-practice dichotomy, is increasingly being criticized as it does not adequately identify and manage ethically relevant risks to those affected by nonresearch activities. As a reaction, 3 major public health institutions (the World Health Organization, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health Ontario) have implemented mechanisms for ethics review of public health practice activities. In this article, we describe and critically discuss the different modalities of the 3 approaches. We argue that although further evaluation is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the different approaches, public health institutions should strive to implement procedures to ensure that public health practice adheres to the highest ethical standards.

Clinical REsearch During Outbreaks (CREDO) Training for Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

We describe a pilot of the Clinical REsearch During Outbreaks (CREDO) initiative, a training curriculum for researchers in epidemic-prone low- and middle-income countries who may respond to disease outbreaks. Participants reported improved confidence in their ability to conduct such research and overall satisfaction with the course structure, content, and training.