Australia's new digital health record created ethical dilemmas.

The last few months of 2018 saw a major battle over privacy, autonomy and use of health information in Australia as the basis for the national electronic health record changed from an opt-in system to one where every person had such a record unless they specifically requested to opt-out of the system. The debate was messy, involving both ethical and wider political concerns, with the ethical concerns partly heightened because of the political context. Canadian health leaders can learn from the mistakes and successes of this situation.

Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.

BACKGROUND: The red tape and delays around research ethics and governance approvals frequently frustrate researchers yet, as the lesser of two evils, are largely accepted as unavoidable. Here we quantify aspects of the research ethics and governance approvals for one interview- and questionnaire-based study conducted in England which used the National Health Service (NHS) procedures and the electronic Integrated Research Application System (IRAS). We demonstrate the enormous impact of existing approvals processes on costs of studies, including opportunity costs to focus on the substantive research, and suggest directions for radical system change. MAIN TEXT: We have recorded 491 exchanges with 89 individuals involved in research ethics and governance approvals, generating 193 pages of email text excluding attachments. These are conservative estimates (e.g. only records of the research associate were used). The exchanges were conducted outside IRAS, expected to be the platform where all necessary documents are provided and questions addressed. Importantly, the figures exclude the actual work of preparing the ethics documentation (such as the ethics application, information sheets and consent forms). We propose six areas of work to enable system change: 1. Support the development of a broad range of customised research ethics and governance templates to complement generic, typically clinical trials orientated, ones; 2. Develop more sophisticated and flexible frameworks for study classification; 3. Link with associated processes for assessment, feedback, monitoring and reporting, such as ones involving funders and patient and public involvement groups; 4. Invest in a new generation IT infrastructure; 5. Enhance system capacity through increasing online reviewer participation and training; and 6. Encourage researchers to quantify the approvals processes for their studies. CONCLUSION: Ethics and governance approvals are burdensome for historical reasons and not because of the nature of the task. There are many opportunities to improve their efficiency and analytic depth in an age of innovation, increased connectivity and distributed working. If we continue to work under current systems, we are perpetuating, paradoxically, an unethical system of research approvals by virtue of its wastefulness and impoverished ethical debate.

Acid Brothers: Henry Beecher, Timothy Leary, and the psychedelic of the century.

Henry Knowles Beecher, an icon of human research ethics, and Timothy Francis Leary, a guru of the counterculture, are bound together in history by the synthetic hallucinogen lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). Both were associated with Harvard University during a critical period in their careers and of drastic social change. To all appearances the first was a paragon of the establishment and a constructive if complex hero, the second a rebel and a criminal, a rogue and a scoundrel. Although there is no evidence they ever met, Beecher's indirect struggle with Leary over control of the 20th century's most celebrated psychedelic was at the very heart of his views about the legitimate, responsible investigator. That struggle also proves to be a revealing bellwether of the increasingly formalized scrutiny of human experiments that was then taking shape.

Testing ground GDR: Western pharmaceutical firms conducting clinical trials behind the Iron Curtain.

Western pharmaceutical companies conducted clinical trials in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. Recently, media reports about alleged human experimentation provoked a wave of indignation. However, a scientific and objective account of these trials is lacking. The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate the clinical trials performed in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) based on archival material from the health system and the secret service. We found documents relating to 220 trials involving more than 14,000 patients and 68 Western companies. However, no record of patient information forms or systematic documentation regarding the provision of patient consent was discovered. There was no evidence to suggest that the trials systematically and intentionally damaged patients. The trials were conducted without the knowledge of the public. GDR legislation stipulated that patients must consent to the trials, but no evidence was found to suggest that patients were systematically informed. Documents suggest that at least some of the trials were carried out without patients having a comprehensive understanding of what the trial involved. The GDR agreed to the trials due to impending bankruptcy and Western pharmaceutical companies capitalised on this situation.

Governance of biomedical research in Singapore and the challenge of conflicts of interest.

This article discusses the establishment of a governance framework for biomedical research in Singapore. It focuses on the work of the Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC), which has been instrumental in institutionalizing a governance framework, through the provision of recommendations to the government, and through the coordination of efforts among government agencies. However, developing capabilities in biomedical sciences presents challenges that are qualitatively different from those of past technologies. The state has a greater role to play in balancing conflicting and potentially irreconcilable economic, social, and political goals. This article analyzes the various ways by which the BAC has facilitated this.

Public health accreditation and metrics for ethics: a case study on environmental health and community engagement.

As public health departments around the country undergo accreditation using the Public Health Accreditation Board standards, the process provides a new opportunity to integrate ethics metrics into day-to-day public health practice. While the accreditation standards do not explicitly address ethics, ethical tools and considerations can enrich the accreditation process by helping health departments and their communities understand what ethical principles underlie the accreditation standards and how to use metrics based on these ethical principles to support decision making in public health practice. We provide a crosswalk between a public health essential service, Public Health Accreditation Board community engagement domain standards, and the relevant ethical principles in the Public Health Code of Ethics (Code). A case study illustrates how the accreditation standards and the ethical principles in the Code together can enhance the practice of engaging the community in decision making in the local health department.

Local IRBs vs. federal agencies: shifting dynamics, systems, and relationships.

How IRBs relate to federal agencies, and the implications of these relationships, have received little, if any, systematic study. I interviewed 46 IRB chairs, directors, administrators, and members, contacting the leadership of 60 U.S. IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding), interviewing IRB leaders from 34 (response rate=55%). IRBs describe complex direct and indirect relationships with federal agencies that affect IRBs through audits, guidance documents, and other communications, and can generate problems and challenges. Researchers often blame IRBs for frustrations, but IRBs often serve as the "local face" of federal regulations and agencies and are "stuck in the middle." These data have critical implications for policy, practice, and research.