Ethical considerations for Forensic Genetic Frequency databases: First Report conception and development.

The Forensic Databases Advisory Board (FDAB), an independent board that assists the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG), has presented a First Report on ethical aspects of the following Forensic Genetic Frequency Databases (FGFD): EMPOP, STRidER and YHRD. The FDAB designed an ethical framework to evaluate the content of these FGFD, and the factors to be considered for retention and acceptance of submissions. The FDAB framework proposes to categorize submissions according to the risk of having contravened the universal ethical principles outlined by international organizations, and the guidelines adopted by the ISFG. The report has been open to discussion by the scientific community since 2023. Herein we present the conception and development of the First Report along with a summary of its content, with consideration of the feedback received.

A scoping review of ethics review processes during public health emergencies in Africa.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments, multilateral public health organisations and research institutions to undertake research quickly to inform their responses to the pandemic. Most COVID-19-related studies required swift approval, creating ethical and practical challenges for regulatory authorities and researchers. In this paper, we examine the landscape of ethics review processes in Africa during public health emergencies (PHEs). METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (Web of Science, PUBMED, MEDLINE Complete, and CINAHL) to identify articles describing ethics review processes during public health emergencies and/or pandemics. We selected and reviewed those articles that were focused on Africa. We charted the data from the retrieved articles including the authors and year of publication, title, country and disease(s) reference, broad areas of (ethical) consideration, paper type, and approach. RESULTS: Of an initial 4536 records retrieved, we screened the titles and abstracts of 1491 articles, and identified 72 articles for full review. Nine articles were selected for inclusion. Of these nine articles, five referenced West African countries including Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, and experiences linked to the Ebola virus disease. Two articles focused on South Africa and Kenya, while the other two articles discussed more general experiences and pitfalls of ethics review during PHEs in Africa more broadly. We found no articles published on ethics review processes in Africa before the 2014 Ebola outbreak, and only a few before the COVID-19 outbreak. Although guidelines on protocol review and approval processes for PHEs were more frequently discussed after the 2014 Ebola outbreak, these did not focus on Africa specifically. CONCLUSIONS: There is a gap in the literature about ethics review processes and preparedness within Africa during PHEs. This paper underscores the importance of these processes to inform practices that facilitate timely, context-relevant research that adequately recognises and reinforces human dignity within the quest to advance scientific knowledge about diseases. This is important to improve fast responses to PHEs, reduce mortality and morbidity, and enhance the quality of care before, during, and after pandemics.

The creation of an adaptable informed consent form for research purposes to overcome national and institutional bottlenecks in ethics review: experience from rare disease registries.

Background: The lack of harmonization of evaluation criteria by Ethics Committees in the European Union (EU) has led to inconsistent ethics reviews received by research sites participating in multicenter non-interventional studies. The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) appears to be implemented at national level with a substantial degree of variance in interpretation. The European Reference Networks (ERNs) were struggling in setting an Informed Consent Form (ICF) for registries, allowing reuse of data for research purposes. The aim of this work is to develop an adaptable ICF for research purposes to be used in ERN registries. Methods: To work on this challenge, a team was established within the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases (EJP RD) to develop a patients' registry ICF template allowing easy adaptation to ERNs, country, and site-level specificities. ERN and patients' representatives validated the choice of developing a GDPR-compliant template for research purposes. The feedback received from 34 Ethics Committees on the Clinical Patient Management System ICF, including the submission of patients' data to the ERN registries and the EU consent regulatory framework were analyzed along with existing ontologies for data access and reuse. An adaptable ICF was developed following iterative cycles of consultation and review by clinicians, research experts, ethics and regulatory advisors, and patients' representatives. The development of pediatric material for minor participants was also undertaken. Results and Conclusion: Research oriented ICF templates for adults and for parents/legal representatives of patients were released in 26 national languages. This adaptable ICF aims to foster, according to patients' preferences, the reuse of registries data for research purposes in compliance with the applicable laws and standards. Pediatric material is being finalized to collect minors' assent. ICF machine-readability is also progressing to enhance data discovery and facilitate its access and reuse conditions.

AI ethics on the road to responsible AI plant science and societal welfare.

The swiftness of artificial intelligence (AI) progress in plant science begets relevant ethical questions with significant scientific and societal implications. Embracing a principled approach to regulation, ethics review and monitoring, and human-centric interpretable informed AI (HIAI), we can begin to navigate our voyage towards ethical and socially responsible AI.

The Ethics of Using News Stories concerning Minors as Empirical Material in Health Research: Reflections on a Swedish Case.

In 2021, we were designing a research study in Sweden in which we planned to use newspaper articles focusing on children and adolescents under the age of eighteen during the Covid-19 pandemic as empirical material. As we developed this study, an ethical question arose: do studies using journalistic articles that may contain health information about individuals as empirical material have to be approved by an ethics review committee? Sweden, in contrast to other countries, requires the approval of an ethics review committee for the use of publicly available material in research when such material might include sensitive personal data such as health-related information. This case study calls for harmonized laws and policies that support global research by clarifying what kinds of empirical material and what types of research must be assessed by national ethics review committees, including with consideration for children's safety and rights.

The Construction and Improvement of the Protection System for the Rights and Interests of Human Subjects in Trial Institutions from the Ethical Perspective: Taking a Hospital in Anhui Province as an Example / 中国医学伦理学

This paper took a hospital in Anhui province as an example, aimed at the problems existing in the protection of human subjects’ rights and interests in China, and put forward relevant suggestions from the ethical perspective. The suggestions included shaping the international vision, playing the core role of ethics committee, strengthening the construction of legal and regulatory protection mechanism, setting up the human research protection committee and actively promoting the construction of subject protection system. These measures will effectively promote the construction and improvement of the rights and interests protection system of human subjects in China.

Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing in Japan.

Genome editing is a technology that can accurately and efficiently modify the genome of organisms, including the human genome. Although human genome editing (HGE) has many benefits, it also involves technical risks and ethical, legal, and social issues. Thus, the pros and cons of using this technology have been actively debated since 2015. Notably, the research community has taken an interest in the issue and has discussed it internationally. However, for the governance of HGE, the roles of government agencies and the general public are also important for an effective regulatory system. Here, we examine the roles of the research community, government, and public in the governance of HGE through an analysis of discussions in the Japanese Expert Panel on Bioethics. During the discussion of the research ethics review system, the professionalism of the research community and the pros and cons of state oversight have become issues for debate. Furthermore, through an examination of the overall policy-making process, three stakeholders are clearly involved in the governance of emerging medical technologies in the Expert Panel on Bioethics, a discussion forum established by government agencies. The contrast among these roles provides insight into the positive roles of government agencies and the research community and the conditions under which these roles are played. We also note that there are diverse actors in the public, which may have an impact on their participation. Our results may serve as a guide for countries and organizations to establish governance on emerging medical technologies.

[Researchers' Knowledge About the Ethical Norms of National Natural Science Foundation of China Funded Medical Research:Current Status and Suggestions].

Objective To understand the current status of Chinese medical researchers' knowledge regarding the ethical norms of the research involving humans or laboratory animals,and provide reference for further improving the ethics review norms. Methods The questionnaire method was employed to survey the applicants for the 2019 projects supported by the Department of Medical Sciences,National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) about their knowledge of ethical requirements.Furthermore,the ethical supervision of the NSFC and affiliations at the project application and implementation stages was analyzed. Results The survey showed that 29.9% medical researchers were familiar with NSFC's ethical requirements for research involving human or laboratory animals.During the project application stage,59.0% affiliations adopted the simplified review method.Regarding the ethical supervison,95.5% medical researchers believed that the affiliations should fulfill the ethical supervision obligations and take relevant measures during the project implementation period.In addition,55.0% medical researchers fully agreed to discuss with the review experts about the ethical issues involved in the project. Conclusions The NSFC should establish rules and regulations to improve institutional management responsibilities and institutionalize the training about research ethics to comprehensively strengthening the training.Taking the management of research project ethics as a starting point,the NSFC should form a multi-party linkage between project funding and management and establish an accountability mechanism for ethics management.Furthermore,the NSFC should double the endeavors at the review of ethical issues during expert review and process management and attach importance to the research,judgment,and prevention of ethical risks.

Implementation of single IRB review for multisite human subjects research: Persistent challenges and possible solutions.

Revisions to the Common Rule and NIH policy require the use of a single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) for the review of most federally funded, multisite research, with the intent of streamlining the review process. However, since initial implementation in 2018, many IRBs and institutions continue to struggle with the logistics of implementing this requirement. In this paper, we report the findings of a workshop held in 2022 to examine why sIRB review remains problematic and propose possible solutions. Workshop participants identified several issues as major barriers, including new responsibilities for study teams, persistent duplicative review processes, the lack of harmonization of policies and practices across institutions, the absence of additional guidance from federal agencies, and the need for greater flexibility in policy requirements. Addressing these problems will require providing additional resources and training to research teams, the commitment of institutional leaders to harmonize practice, and policymakers to critically evaluate the requirement and provide flexibility in applicability.

Tiempos de evaluación ética de protocolos de investigación: resultados de un estudio observacional / Time of ethics review of research proposals: results of an observational study

La evaluación de protocolos de investigación por Comités de Ética en Investigación (CEI), esencialpara garantizar la protección de los participantes, se gestiona en la Ciudad de Buenos Aires a través laplataforma electrónica PRIISA.BA desde enero del 2020. El objetivo del presente estudio fue describirlos tiempos de evaluación ética, su evolución temporal, y los predictores de su duración. Se realizóun estudio observacional que incluyó todos los protocolos evaluados entre enero de 2020 y septiem-bre de 2021. Se calcularon los tiempos al dictamen final y a la primera observación. Se evaluaron lastendencias temporales de los tiempos, y la asociación multivariada entre éstos y características de losprotocolos y de los CEI. Se incluyeron 2781 protocolos evaluados en 62 CEI. La mediana de tiempo aldictamen final fue de 29.11 (RIQ 11.29 a 63.35) días, y del tiempo a la primera observación de 8.92(RIQ 2.05 a 18.18) días. Los tiempos se redujeron significativamente a lo largo del período de estudio.Detectamos como variables independientemente asociadas a menor tiempo a la temática COVID, tenerfinanciamiento y el número de centros a realizarse el estudio y haber sido evaluado en un CEI con másde 10 miembros. La realización de observaciones al protocolo se asoció a mayor tiempo. Los resultadosdel presente trabajo sugieren que los tiempos de evaluación ética se redujeron durante el período deestudio. Además, se identificaron variables asociadas con los tiempos, que podrían ser objeto de inter-venciones para mejorar el proceso.(AU)

The review of research protocols by Research Ethics Committees (RECs), essential to ensure theprotection of participants, has been managed in the City of Buenos Aires through the PRIISA.BA elec-tronic platform since January 2020. The aim of the present study was to describe ethical review times,their temporal evolution, and predictors of their duration. We conducted an observational study thatincluded all the protocols reviewed between January 2020 and September 2021. Times to approvaland to first observation were calculated. Temporal trends in times, and the multivariate associationbetween these and protocol and IRB characteristics were evaluated. 2,781 protocols reviewed in 62RECs were included. The median time to approval was 29.11 (RIQ 11.29 to 63.35) days, and time to firstobservation was 8.92 (RIQ 2.05 to 18.18) days. The times were significantly reduced throughout thestudy period. We detected as variables independently associated with shorter time to approval to bea COVID proposal, having funding and the number of centers to perform the study and having beenreviewed by an RECs with more than 10 members. Making observations to the protocol was associatedwith more time. The results of the present work suggest that ethical review times were reduced duringstudy period. In addition, variables associated with time were identified that could be the object ofinterventions to improve the process.(AU)

Variability in Ethics Review for Multicenter Protocols in Buenos Aires, Argentina. An Observational Study.

It has been reported that significant variability in the ethics review process affects multisite studies. We analyzed 1,305 applications for multicenter studies (409 unique protocols), from 1st January 2020 to 20th September 2021. We examined the variability in the times to approval and the first observation and the variation in the level of risk assigned. The median [IQR] variabilities were 42.19 [15.23-82.36] days and 8.00 [3.12-16.68] days, for the times to approval and to the first observation, respectively. There was disagreement in the level of risk assigned by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) in 24.0% of cases. Independent predictors of variability included the number of REC members. In our study, we found substantial variability in the ethics review process among health research protocols. Also, we describe methods to readily measure the delays and the variations in the ethics review process.

Researchers' Knowledge About the Ethical Norms of National Natural Science Foundation of China Funded Medical Research:Current Status and Suggestions / 中国医学科学院学报

Objective To understand the current status of Chinese medical researchers' knowledge regarding the ethical norms of the research involving humans or laboratory animals,and provide reference for further improving the ethics review norms. Methods The questionnaire method was employed to survey the applicants for the 2019 projects supported by the Department of Medical Sciences,National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) about their knowledge of ethical requirements.Furthermore,the ethical supervision of the NSFC and affiliations at the project application and implementation stages was analyzed. Results The survey showed that 29.9% medical researchers were familiar with NSFC's ethical requirements for research involving human or laboratory animals.During the project application stage,59.0% affiliations adopted the simplified review method.Regarding the ethical supervison,95.5% medical researchers believed that the affiliations should fulfill the ethical supervision obligations and take relevant measures during the project implementation period.In addition,55.0% medical researchers fully agreed to discuss with the review experts about the ethical issues involved in the project. Conclusions The NSFC should establish rules and regulations to improve institutional management responsibilities and institutionalize the training about research ethics to comprehensively strengthening the training.Taking the management of research project ethics as a starting point,the NSFC should form a multi-party linkage between project funding and management and establish an accountability mechanism for ethics management.Furthermore,the NSFC should double the endeavors at the review of ethical issues during expert review and process management and attach importance to the research,judgment,and prevention of ethical risks.

Analysis on key points of ethics review of horizontal scientific research projects: Based on the ethics review management system of horizontal scientific research projects in a tertiary hospital / 中华医学科研管理杂志

Objective:This paper aims to promote the standardization of ethics review of horizontal scientific research projects and improve the ethics review quality by analyzing the current ethics review practice in a certain tertiary hospital, identifying common problems during the review process, illustrating relevant causes and proposing corresponding solutions.Methods:Through introducing the current situation of ethics review of horizontal scientific research projects in a tertiary level hospital, the differences between the main points of ethics review of horizontal scientific research projects and government-funded scientific research projects were analyzed, so as to sort out the common problems and possible causes in the process of ethics review of horizontal scientific research projects, and then explore the possible corresponding solutions.Results:Based on the characteristics of horizontal research projects, ethics review should focus on their scientific and social values, potential conflicts of interest, protection of subjects′ rights and interests, and whole-process management and quality assurance. At present, there are still many problems, such as a large number of projects, but not many projects with high research value, inadequate project process management, and ineffective implementation of ethics review opinions.Conclusions:The hospital should further improve the management system of horizontal scientific research project approval, bring in more comprehensive review regarding to both scientific and ethics review, engage more experts at the outset of project funding decision-making, set up ethics specialists, strengthen the process management of horizontal scientific research projects, strengthen ethical publicity and education, and improve the ethical awareness of researchers to fully protect the rights and interests of subjects and promote the high-quality development of clinical research.

Thinking from the Perspective of Medical Institutions on Measures for Ethical Review of Life Science and Medical Research Involving Humans / 中国医学伦理学

From the perspective of medical institutions, this paper sorted out the background of the promulgation and important changes of Measures for Ethical Review of Life Science and Medical Research Involving Humans, and summarized the changes that may significantly affect the ethical review of medical institutions. It involved terminology changes and expansion of the scope of ethic review, clarification of the responsibilities and independence of the ethics committee, the refinement of the ethical review process, the emphasis on the protection of personal information and the rights and interests of subjects, and first proposal to exempt from ethical review. In addition, based on the concept of strengthening the ethical governance of science and technology in the new version of regulations, this paper shared the consideration on the governance of ethical review within medical institutions, including safeguarding the dignity and rights of subject, clarifying the role and position of ethical review, exempting the implementation of ethical review, and managing entrusted ethical review. With a view to providing a certain reference for the ethics practitioners and researchers in various medical institutions.

Reflection and Practice on the Implementation of "Exemption from Ethical Review" in Medical Institutions / 中国医学伦理学

From the perspective of medical institutions, this paper sorted out the contents of Article 32 of the Measures for Ethical Review of Life Sciences and Medical Research Involving Human regarding "exemption from ethical review". At the same time, combined with domestic and foreign regulations, this paper deeply considered and analyzed the applicable premise and special circumstances of the provisions from the implementation level, and then put forward suggestions from the perspective of practical operation of medical institutions, with a view to providing some practical guidance and reference for ethical practitioners of medical institutions.

Challenges and Implementation Suggestions for Exemption from Ethical Review / 中国医学伦理学

To reduce the burden of researchers, Article 32 of the Measures for Ethical Review of Life Sciences and Medical Research Involving Human issued in February 2023 proposed that the review could be exempted. Normative exemption from review can not only relieve the burden of researchers, but also reduce the work pressure of the ethics committee, and devote limited time and energy to the review and supervision of high-risk research. This paper analyzed the four criteria for exemption from review first, and then summarized the situation of exemption from ethics review in the International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans and in the United States. In view of the fact that there are no relevant regulations on exemption from ethics review, though some medical and health institutions have implemented exemption from ethics review for some studies, the ethics committee often lacks standard operating procedures, corresponding documents, and experience for exemption from ethics review, researchers lack training for exemption from ethics review, and institutions have no supporting measures for exemption from review. To effectively implement the exemption from review, this paper proposed the following suggestions:developing standard operating procedures for exemption from review, and clarifying the review process, which can be simplified to secretary reviews, with senior secretaries or office directors judging whether they meet the exemption criteria, and the chairman reviewing and signing to convey the review decision. Refining the criteria that meet the exemption from ethics review, and providing cases and explanations as necessary, which will help researchers accurately understand the connotation of each criterion, and also provide reference for researchers to make their own preliminary judgments. Strengthening the training of researchers’ exemption from review criteria. The study should obtain the project proposal first, and provide scientific demonstration opinions. To explore the implementation of continuing review, institutions should accelerate the standardized construction of biological sample banks and databases to ensure the provision of compliant sources of biological samples and information data. Exemption from ethics review should not be abused, and the relationship between reducing the burden on researchers and ensuring the quality of ethical review should be balanced.

Research on the Strategy of Improving the Efficiency of Multi-departmental Operation in the Ethics Review System of Traditional Chinese Medicine after CAP Certification / 中国医学伦理学

Capability Accreditation Program of Ethics Review for Chinese Medicine Research (CAP Accreditation) is the first medical ethics certification project in China. Institutions can further improve their ethics review work level after passing the CAP accreditation. However, the operational efficiency of each department in the ethics review system needs to be further improved when performing relevant functions in accordance with the certification requirements. Based on the experience and summary in the work of the ethical review system, this paper analyzed the main factors that affect the efficiency of the ethical review system and put forward improvement strategies from six aspects: organizational leadership, incentive policies, quality supervision, system construction, talent training, and promotion through evaluation, with a view to providing reference for improving the efficiency of ethical review, and promoting multi-department coordination and system integration.

A narrative review on the development of the ethical review mode of multicenter clinical trials in China.

Background and Objective: The number of new drug clinical trials in China is surging, and ethics review played an important part in clinical trials. However, there are certain problems of ethical review in China. This review aims to conduct a review to propose recommendations of an ethical review mode for multicenter clinical trials and ultimately contribute to improving the ethics review mechanism and the efficiency. Methods: A literature review, publication research and interpretation of the related governmental policies and requirements in China were conducted to collect available information for analysis of the current situation in terms of the various ethical review modes for multicenter clinical research. The literatures and information were searched and selected from national and international database and related governance website by following some inclusion and exclusion criteria. And a comparation with the relevant practical experience in the USA was conducted to support the proposing of recommendations to China by referring to some successful practice in the USA. Key Content and Findings: China has undergone several stages of development. The most traditional and least efficient model is institutional review boards (IRBs) review, which is most commonly used. After IRB review mode, other modes such as central IRB and single IRB review have emerged, which have improved the efficiency of ethical review. However, multiple challenges exist like, no clear definition of regulatory responsibilities and the consensus is not easy to be made due to the gap of interpretation and the unbalanced development on ethic review system from Chinese hospitals. Conclusions: The multicenter ethical review should adopt the conditional 'approval' mode of the leading site's ethical review decisions, gradually establish a single IRB review and select the best ethics committee. Regional ethics committees can gradually take responsibility for the primary review in the multicenter ethics review model and ultimately contribute to improving the mechanism and efficiency of the ethics review.