Australian Attitudes Towards Waivers of Consent Within the Context of Genomic Data Sharing.

This research identifies the circumstances in which Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) are trusted by Australians to approve the use of genomic data - without express consent - and considers the impact of genomic data sharing settings, and respondent attributes, on public trust. Survey results (N = 3013) show some circumstances are more conducive to public trust than others, with waivers endorsed when future research is beneficial and when privacy is protected, but receiving less support in other instances. Still, results imply attitudes are influenced by more than these specific circumstances, with different data sharing settings, and participant attributes, affecting views. Ultimately, this research raises questions and concerns in relation to the criteria HRECs use when authorising waivers of consent in Australia.

Anatomical human body donation in South Africa: Inconsistencies of informed consent.

INTRODUCTION: Informed consent is critical for maintaining the ethical standards associated with the utilization of human donor bodies by tertiary education institutions. Body donation programs undertake the responsibility for procuring human donor bodies for didactic and research purposes. However, its processes require scrutiny regarding best practice guidelines and the South African National Health Act (SA-NHA) (2013). Moreover, acknowledging and addressing the current perceptions of human body donation are indispensable in bridging the gap between academia and society. This study aimed to compare informed consent documentation and procedures across South African tertiary education institutions and their affiliated human body donation programs (HBDP) in accordance with international guidelines. The findings were used to create a human body donation form template aligned to current international best practices for consideration by the South African HBDP. METHODOLOGY: A review of information and consent forms collected from South Africa's eight HBDP was conducted. The analyses consisted of a broad evaluation of information provided, ranging from the terms-of-use for human donor bodies to the commitments made by HBDP to body-donors. The results were considered in conjunction with the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists and other recent publications on informed consent in HBDP. RESULTS: Only two of the eight HBDP provided information and consent forms in more than one language. Most allowed donors to select how their bodies will be utilized - education, training and/or research. Some (6/8) made provisions for the next-of-kin to receive the cremains. Only one tertiary educational institution mentioned the occurrence of a memorial service in its documentation. An HBDF template was created aligned to current international best practices for presentation and possible adaption by SA HBDP. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS: Human body donation forms (HBDF) requires thorough examination for the promotion and sustainability of HBDP. Effective communication by employing standardized non-technical terminology conveyed in language that is understandable and native to potential donors facilitates the deliverance of informed consent. Inconsistencies regarding the use and management of bodies catalyze the weakening perception of human body donation. Thus, this process of securing informed consent for body donation should be conducted in conjunction with public awareness campaigns and underpinned by the necessary policy and legislative reform.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Breastmilk Three and Six Months Postpartum in Relation to the Trimester of Maternal SARS-CoV-2 Infection-An Exploratory Study.

The immune system of neonates is immature and therefore knowledge of possible early-life protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, such as breastfeeding, is of great importance. Few studies have investigated the presence and duration of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in breastmilk in relation to the trimester of maternal infection during pregnancy, and none with successful participation from all three trimesters. This study has dual objectives (1) in relation to the trimester of infection to examine the frequency, concentration and duration of IgA and IgG antibodies in breastmilk and blood serum in the third and sixth month post-partum in former SARS-CoV-2-infected mothers and (2) to examine the association in pediatric emergency admission of children within the first six months of life compared to children of non-SARS-CoV-2-infected women. The first objective is based on a prospective cohort and the second is based on a nested case-control design. The study participants are women with a former SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, whose serology IgG tests at delivery were still positive. Maternal blood and breastmilk samples were collected at three and six months postpartum. Serum IgA frequency three months pp was 72.7% (50%, 90% and 60% in the first, second and third trimester) and 82% six months pp (67%, 91% and 82% in the first, second and third trimester). Breastmilk IgA frequency three months pp was 27% (16.6%, 36% and 20% in first, second and third trimester) and 28% six months pp (0%, 38% and 28% in the first, second and third trimester). The highest IgA concentration in breastmilk was found six months post-partum with infection in the third trimester. Serum IgA was detectable more than 400 days post infection, and serum IgG above threshold was found 430 days after date of infection. We found no correlation between serum IgA and breastmilk IgA, nor between serum IgG and breastmilk IgA regardless of the trimester of infection.

Moving to the Middle Ground: Redefining Genomic Utility to Expand Understanding of Familial Benefit.

Translational research has tended to ignore the question of whether receiving a genomic diagnosis provides utility in community care contexts outside of doctors' offices and hospitals. However, empirical research with parents has highlighted numerous ways that a genomic diagnosis might be of practical value in the care provided by teachers, physical or occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, behavior analysts, and nonphysician mental health providers. In this essay, we propose a new conceptual model of genomic utility that offers the opportunity to better capture a broad range of potential implications of genomic technologies for families in various social and organizational systems. We explore crucial research directions to better understand how redefined utility might affect families and nonphysician professionals.

Construction and Operation of the Human Research Protection Program for Clinical Research on Traditional Chinese Medicine / 中国医学伦理学

It is the responsibility of a clinical research institution to protect the rights and interests of research subjects. For the full process supervision of clinical research projects, the construction of a Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) which is suitable to the hospital’s situation can gradually improve the ethical review quality, and provide comprehensive protection measures for participants and potential participants throughout the entire clinical research process. Combined with the characteristics of clinical research and ethical review of Traditional Chinese Medicine(TCM), this paper introduced the construction of an HRPP system that highlights TCM characteristics. At the same time, this paper systematically analyzed the division of responsibilities, communication and cooperation of different committees and departments within the HRPP system to ensure the effective operation of the entire HRPP system, improve the quality of TCM clinical research and the protection level of the HRPP system, in order to achieve the goal of promote the healthy, orderly and scientific development of clinical research.

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.

A Passing Problem: Evaluating Harm and Benefit in Autism Research.

Autism research frequently seeks to evaluate interventions or inform their development. Unfortunately, researchers often assume that autism intervention should reduce autistic traits, effectively setting as a goal of treatment that autistic people attempt to "pass" as nonautistic. A growing body of evidence highlights serious potential harms from passing demands. We discuss why it is important for institutional review boards (IRBs) to scrutinize autism research for clinical passing demands, and we document the existence of such demands in outcome measures commonly employed in autism research. We propose an ethical framework for IRBs and others to make use of in evaluating the ethical appropriateness of particular treatment goals in autism intervention or intervention-adjacent research, emphasizing that treatment goals should be in pursuit of a beneficial nonpassing purpose and be the least burdensome means of accomplishing such a purpose. We also highlight potential promising practices for IRBs, investigators, and other stakeholders seeking to address these issues in autism research.

Navigating Informed Consent Requirements and Expectations in Cluster Randomized Trials: Research Ethics Board Members' and Researchers' Views.

Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical human research. However, as cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are increasingly popular to evaluate health service interventions, especially as health systems aspire toward the learning health system, questions abound how research teams and research ethics boards (REBs) should navigate intertwining consent and data-use considerations. Methodological and ethical questions include who constitute the participants, whose and what types of consent are necessary, and how data from people who have not consented to participation should be managed to optimize the balance of trust in the research enterprise, respect for persons, the promotion of data integrity, and the pursuit of the public good in the research arena. In this paper, we report the findings and lessons learned from a qualitative study examining how researchers and REB members consider the ethical dimensions of when data can be collected and used in CRTs in the evolving research landscape.

Protecting human subjects participating in research.

OBJECTIVES: Institutions conducting research involving human subjects establish institutional review boards (IRBs) and/or human research protection programs to protect human research subjects. Our objectives were to develop performance metrics to measure human research subject protections and to assess how well IRBs and human research protection programs are protecting human research subjects. METHODS: A set of five performance metrics for measuring human research subject protections was developed and data were collected through annual audits of informed consent documents and human research protocols at 107 Department of Veterans Affairs research facilities from 2010 through 2021. RESULTS: The proposed performance metrics were: local adverse events that were serious, unanticipated, and related or probably related to research, including those that resulted in hospitalization or death; where required informed consent was not obtained; required Heath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act authorization was not obtained; non-exempt research was conducted without IRB approval; and research activities were continued during a lapse in IRB continuing reviews. Analysis of these performance metric data from 2010 through 2021 revealed that incident rates of all five performance metrics were very low; three showed a statistically significant trend of improvement ranging from 70% to 100%; and none of these five performance metrics deteriorated. CONCLUSIONS: Department of Veterans Affairs human research protection programs appeared to be effective in protecting human research subjects and showed improvement from 2010 through 2021. These proposed performance metrics will be useful in monitoring the effectiveness of human research protection programs in protecting human research subjects.

Inclusive, engaged, and accountable institutional review boards.

In February 2023, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released another report acknowledging that we still lack meaningful, validated, widely-accepted measures for evaluating institutional review board (IRB) quality and effectiveness. This challenge is well known to the Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight (www.AEREO.org), a collaborative group of human research protection (HRP) professionals, researchers, and research ethicists founded in 2018 to do precisely what GAO recommends: examine approaches for measuring IRB effectiveness in protecting human subjects, and implement the approaches as appropriate. Two underlying tenets have been central to AEREO's as approach to thinking about IRB quality and effectiveness: (1) IRBs exist to protect participants and thus the participant perspective should be central to all IRBs do; and (2) because IRBs are tasked with applying subjective ethical and regulatory standards about which people may disagree, their approach and decisions should at least meet the basic standard of reasonableness in terms of accounting for relevant perspectives, considering key factors, and providing defensible justifications. Critical to each of these tenets, IRBs should include diverse perspectives in their deliberations, find ways to meaningfully engage with relevant communities about their views regarding ethical research and appropriate participant protections, and be accountable to the public.

Disclosing Conflicts of Interest to Potential Research Participants: Good for Nothing?

The growing commercialization of science has raised concerns about financial conflicts of interest (COIs). Evidence suggests that such conflicts threaten the integrity of research and the well-being of research participants. Trying to minimize these negative effects, federal agencies, academic institutions, and publishers have developed conflict-of-interest policies. Among such policies, recommendations or requirements to disclose financial COIs to potential research participants and patients have become commonplace. Here, I argue that disclosing conflicts of interest to potential research participants fails to achieve the weighty moral goals that presumably ground such policies. This is so either because disclosure is simply a wrong means for achieving some of the goals in question or because, although disclosure could be an appropriate means for some of those goals, the way in which it is implemented prevents fulfillment of the desirable moral aim.

Research Ethics during Pandemics: How IRBs Can Prepare.

The Covid-19 pandemic has raised a range of complex challenges for the research community in the United States. This essay uses Covid-19 as a model pandemic illness to consider two such issues that have yet to be fully explored in the ethics literature: first, whether the informed consent process should include a discussion of pandemic risks and, if so, how precisely these risks should be conveyed to potential research participants and, second, whether and under what circumstances vaccination status should be taken into consideration when enrolling subjects in non-pandemic-related studies during a pandemic.

Legally Effective but Ethically Inadequate: Institutional Review Board Policies for Consent from Legally Authorized Representatives.

The prevailing approach to enrolling decisionally impaired adults in clinical research is to rely on permission from a default surrogate, one identified by law rather than by the prospective research participant. Reliance on a surrogate transfers the focus of ethical protection from a researcher-participant relationship to a researcher-surrogate relationship; the selection and role of the surrogate are therefore important. The Common Rule defers to state law governing default surrogate consent to research, but most states have no such law; for those states, the Common Rule defers to institutional policy. I reviewed twenty-five of the study sites with the highest National Institutes of Health funding levels to elaborate the content of institutional review board (IRB) policies and compare those to a suggested paradigm for ethically defensible policies. My findings suggest that IRB policies provide inadequate protection because they recognize surrogates who lack knowledge of the subject's current values and preferences without imposing adequate additional safeguards.

Can the Research Team-Participant Relationship Ground Ancillary-Care Obligations?

Discussion of medical researcher teams' ancillary-care obligations has long been dominated by partial-entrustment theory, developed in 2004 by the author of this article, in collaboration with Leah Belsky. Critics of the limited scope of the special ancillary-care obligations defended by that theory, however, argue that a better theory would take fuller account of the relationship that develops between individual research participants and members of the research team. Nate W. Olson and Thaddeus Metz have each put forward well worked-out versions of such a relationship-based account of ancillary-care obligations. This article critically evaluates these accounts, concluding that while each of them is vulnerable to various criticisms, each also crucially facilitates understanding of this relationship: Olson brings out well how research participants can find that role not just beneficial but also deeply meaningful, and Metz, drawing on African ethical traditions, emphasizes that when things go well, participants are involved as partners in the research effort. Yet the article closes by arguing that the partial-entrustment theory, surprisingly, can take on board each of these lessons. As so enhanced, it may actually be the best available relationship-based theory of this subject.

Public Policy Experiments without Equipoise: When Is Randomization Fair?

Government agencies and nonprofit organizations have increasingly turned to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate public policy interventions. Random assignment is widely understood to be fair when there is equipoise; however, some scholars and practitioners argue that random assignment is also permissible when an intervention is reasonably expected to be superior to other trial arms. For example, some argue that random assignment to such an intervention is fair when the intervention is scarce, for it is sometimes fair to use a lottery to allocate scarce goods. We investigate the permissibility of randomization in public policy RCTs when there is no equipoise, identifying two sets of conditions under which it is fair to allocate access to a superior intervention via random assignment. We also reject oft-made claims that alternative study designs, including stepped-wedge designs and uneven randomization, offer fair ways to allocate beneficial interventions.

Factors That Impact Hospital-Specific Enrollment Rates for a Neonatal Clinical Trial: An Analysis of the HEAL Study.

Inconsistent enrollment among hospitals for neonatal clinical trials may lead to study populations that are not representative of the patient population in the neonatal intensive care unit. The High-Dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and Encephalopathy (HEAL) trial was a multisite randomized clinical trial investigating erythropoietin as a neuroprotective treatment for term infants (those born between 37 and 42 complete weeks) with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. Substantial variability was noted in enrollment rate by hospital. We developed survey questions across five conceptual domains to understand systems-level issues that might contribute to variation in enrollment rate by hospital. Our study found that hospitals varied in their responses across these five domains. We propose three potential reasons that we found a lack of identifiable hospital-level factors that correlated with enrollment rates: sample-size limitations, methodological concerns, and confounding factors. Future studies with a larger sample size should be considered to evaluate contributors to hospital-level variability. This will lead to more robust recruitment strategies, improved enrollment, and decreases in the waste of research resources.

How Do Accredited Organizations Evaluate the Quality and Effectiveness of Their Human Research Protection Programs?

BACKGROUND: Meaningfully evaluating the quality of institutional review boards (IRBs) and human research protection programs (HRPPs) is a long-recognized challenge. To be accredited by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP), organizations must demonstrate that they measure and improve HRPP "quality, effectiveness, and efficiency" (QEE). We sought to learn how AAHRPP-accredited organizations interpret and satisfy this standard, in order to assess strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in current approaches and to inform recommendations for improvement. METHODS: We conducted 3 small-group interviews with a total of 19 participant representatives of accredited organizations at the 2019 AAHRPP annual meeting. Participants were eligible if they had familiarity with their organization's approach to satisfying the relevant QEE standard. RESULTS: Participants reported lacking clear definitions for HRPP quality or effectiveness but described various approaches to assessing QEE, typically focused on turnaround time, compliance, and researcher satisfaction. Evaluation of IRB members was described as relatively superficial and information regarding research subject experience was not reported as central to QEE assessment, although participants described several efforts to improve consideration of patient, subject, and community perspectives in IRB review. Participants also described efforts to educate and build relationships with key stakeholders as important features of a high-quality HRPP. While generally satisfied with their approaches, participants expressed concern about resource and time constraints that pushed them to be reactive and automatic about QEE, rather than proactive and critical. CONCLUSIONS: The relevant AAHRPP accreditation standard may obscure critical gaps in defining and measuring QEE elements. We recommend that AAHRPP: (1) offer a definition of QEE or require accredited organizations to provide their own, to help clarify the rationale and goals behind assessment and improvement efforts, and (2) require accredited organizations to establish QEE objectives and measures focused on participant outcomes and deliberative quality during protocol review.

Review of Clinical Equipoise: Examples from Oncology Trials.

BACKGROUND: The current standards that govern clinical research have been shaped over the years through many historical, social, and political events. The third principle of the Belmont Report, Justice, guides the scientific community toward the equal distribution of benefits and risks in research involving human subjects. Clinical equipoise is the status of genuine uncertainty by the investigator about the superiority of one treatment arm over the other. The term clinical equipoise was proposed to provide an ethical ground to conduct randomized controlled clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to provide the reader with an overview of the emergence of the term equipoise and its utilization in randomized controlled trials. METHODS: In the current review article, the major oncology clinical trials and relevant patents were reviewed for the application/utilization of clinical equipoise. RESULTS: The concept of clinical equipoise has been challenged, and different alternatives were proposed. Yet, these alternatives received numerous critiques and failed to fully replace equipoise. In addition, several patents related to anticancer agents tested in the described studies were examined. No specific reference was made as part of the patent to the status of clinical equipoise. Alternatively, a description of the study arms was provided. CONCLUSION: There is a need for revisiting the concept of equipoise and its suggested alternatives for its ethical essence while addressing related challenges.

Ethical Frameworks for Disclosure of Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers to Research Participants: Conflicting Norms and a Nuanced Policy.

More and more frequently, clinical trials for Alzheimer disease (AD) are targeting cognitively unimpaired individuals who are at increased risk of developing the disease. It is not always clear whether AD biomarker information should be disclosed to research participants: on the one hand, research participants may be interested in learning this information because of its perceived utility, but on the other hand, learning this information may be harmful, as there are very few effective preventive or therapeutic options available for AD. In this article, we bring together three separate sets of ethical guidance literature: on the return of individual research results, on an individual's right to access personal data, and on transparent enrollment into clinical trials. Based on these literatures, we suggest policies for the disclosure of AD biomarker test results in longitudinal observational cohort studies, clinical trials, and hybrid research projects, such as the European Prevention of Alzheimer's Dementia (EPAD) project, in which we served as an ethics team. We also present and critically discuss recommendations for disclosure of AD biomarkers in practice. We underscore that, as long as the clinical validity of AD biomarkers remains limited, there are good reasons to avoid actively disclosing them to cognitively unimpaired research participants.

Participants' Perspectives on Payment for Research Participation: A Qualitative Study.

Investigators commonly offer payments to research participants to promote recruitment and retention. Yet the ethics of offering monetary incentives to research participants continues to be debated. Prior conceptual work has addressed some of these concerns; there is, however, also a need for empirical evidence to understand the effects of payment on participants. Here, we report the results of a qualitative study comprising (1) discourse analysis of recruitment conversations between study coordinators and potential participants for an actual clinical trial and (2) semistructured interviews with participants addressing the effects of an incentive on their decision-making. Many participants reported that money had been a motivation for enrolling in the clinical trial but did not use reasoning that suggested undue influence or unjust inducement. These findings add to a growing body of literature suggesting that payment is an ethically acceptable tool for promoting recruitment and retention in clinical trials.