The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation: Insights From a National Collaborative

The increasing complexity of human subjects research and its oversight has prompted researchers, as well as institutional review boards (IRBs), to have a forum in which to discuss challenging or novel ethical issues not fully addressed by regulations. Research ethics consultation (REC) services provide such a forum. In this article, we rely on the experiences of a national Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative that collected more than 350 research ethics consultations in a repository and published 18 challenging cases with accompanying ethical commentaries to highlight four contexts in which REC can be a valuable resource. REC assists: 1) investigators before and after the regulatory review; 2) investigators, IRBs, and other research administrators facing challenging and novel ethical issues; 3) IRBs and investigators with the increasing challenges of informed consent and risk/benefit analysis; and 4) in providing flexible and collaborative assistance to overcome study hurdles, mediate conflicts within a team, or directly engage with research participants. Institutions that have established, or plan to establish, REC services should work to raise the visibility of their service and engage in open communication with existing clinical ethics consult services as well as the IRB. While the IRB system remains the foundation for the ethical review of research, REC can be a valuable service for investigators, regulators, and research participants aligned with the goal of supporting ethical research.     

Why Bioethics Should Be Concerned With Medically Unexplained Symptoms

Biomedical diagnostic science is a great deal less successful than we've been willing to acknowledge in bioethics, and this fact has far-reaching ethical implications. In this article I consider the surprising prevalence of medically unexplained symptoms, and the term's ambiguous meaning. Then I frame central questions that remain answered in this context with respect to informed consent, autonomy, and truth-telling. Finally, I show that while considerable attention in this area is given to making sure not to provide biological care to patients without a need, comparatively little is given to the competing, ethically central task of making sure never to obstruct access to biological care for those with diagnostically confusing biological conditions. I suggest this problem arises from confusion about the philosophical value of vagueness when it comes to the line between biological and psychosocial needs.     

An Ethical Exploration of Barriers to Research on Controlled Drugs

We examine the ethical, social, and regulatory barriers that may hinder research on therapeutic potential of certain controversial controlled substances like marijuana, heroin, or ketamine. Hazards for individuals and society and potential adverse effects on communities may be good reasons for limiting access and justify careful monitoring of these substances. Overly strict regulations, fear of legal consequences, stigma associated with abuse and populations using illicit drugs, and lack of funding may, however, limit research on their considerable therapeutic potential. We review the surprisingly sparse literature and address the particular ethical concerns pertinent to research with illicit and addictive substances, such as undue inducement, informed consent, therapeutic misconception, and risk to participants, researchers, and institutions. We consider the perspectives of key research stakeholders and explore whether they may be infected with bias. We conclude by proposing an empirical research agenda to provide an evidentiary basis for ethical reasoning.     

国际合作中知情同意面临的难题及思考

目前在医学研究的国际合作中,知情同意原则在实施中出现了许多争议和难题.结合一些典型案例,对知情同意的跨文化研究、知情同意表格的误解以及保护受试者与自由研究之间的权衡等问题进行了深入地分析.指出:加强交流、相互尊重、求同存异是解决跨文化研究的必由之路;严格审查、加强监管是避免知情同意流于形式的重要手段;鼓励与防范并举才能达到双赢的局面.     

基因研究中的知情同意之惑

知情同意作为生命伦理的重要原则,在基因研究中同样占据重要的地位,由于基因研究中知情同意的异质性,在基因研究中面临着诸如如何理解其知情同意的异质性、群体知情同意、基因知情与基因隐私、利益冲突等问题.通过分析基因研究中知情同意的特殊性,综合国内外此领域的已有研究,运用理论联系实际的方法,得出结论认为,只有正确区分基因知情与基因隐私的权利主体,用伦理规范来解决利益冲突,在发展中不断完善知情同意,才能够取得科技与伦理的共赢.     

When Is It Ethical for Physician-Investigators to Seek Consent From Their Own Patients?

Classic statements of research ethics advise against permitting physician-investigators to obtain consent for research participation from patients with whom they have preexisting treatment relationships. Reluctance about “dual-role” consent reflects the view that distinct normative commitments govern physician–patient and investigator–participant relationships, and that blurring the research–care boundary could lead to ethical transgressions. However, several features of contemporary research demand reconsideration of the ethics of dual-role consent. Here, we examine three arguments advanced against dual-role consent: that it creates role conflict for the physician-investigator; that it can compromise the voluntariness of the patient-participant’s consent; and that it promotes therapeutic misconceptions. Although these concerns have merit in some circumstances, they are not dispositive in all cases. Rather, their force—and the ethical acceptability of dual-role consent—varies with features of the particular study. As research participation more closely approximates usual care, it becomes increasingly acceptable, or even preferable, for physicians to seek consent for research from their own patients. It is time for a more nuanced approach to dual-role consent.     

健康医疗数据相关研究的伦理审查要点重构及其论证

健康医疗数据相关研究极大地拓展了传统生物医学研究的范畴,影响了医学研究的思路、方法和范式,也给伦理审查带来了新的挑战。从梳理国际伦理指南对健康医疗数据相关研究提出的要求出发,探讨此类研究当前的伦理审查现状及挑战,强调伦理审查不仅要关注风险获益比、知情同意程序、隐私保护措施这些核心问题,还需要以更加全面和深入的视角进行关注。同时,针对研究的科学价值和社会价值、研究目的的合理性和合法性、数据治理和数据管理要求、风险获益评估、知情同意模式创新以及研究团队资质等六个伦理审查要点进行重构和探讨。

     

Reassessing the Ethics of Molecular HIV Surveillance in the Era of Cluster Detection and Response: Toward HIV Data Justice

Abstract

In the United States, clinical HIV data reported to surveillance systems operated by jurisdictional departments of public health are re-used for epidemiology and prevention. In 2018, all jurisdictions began using HIV genetic sequence data from clinical drug resistance tests to identify people living with HIV in “clusters” of others with genetically similar strains. This is called “molecular HIV surveillance” (MHS). In 2019, “cluster detection and response” (CDR) programs that re-use MHS data became the “fourth pillar” of the national HIV strategy. Public health re-uses of HIV data are done without consent and are a source of concern among stakeholders. This article presents three cases that illuminate bioethical challenges associated with re-uses of clinical HIV data for public health. We focus on evidence-base, risk-benefit ratio, determining directionality of HIV transmission, consent, and ethical re-use. The conclusion offers strategies for “HIV data justice.” The essay contributes to a “bioethics of the oppressed.”     

Corrected Feedback: A Procedure to Enhance Recall of Informed Consent to Research Among Substance Abusing Offenders

This study examined the efficacy of corrected feedback for improving consent recall throughout the course of an ongoing longitudinal study. Participants (N = 135) were randomly assigned to either a corrected feedback or a no-feedback control condition. Participants completed a consent quiz 2 weeks after consenting to the host study and at months 1, 2, and 3. The corrected feedback group received corrections to erroneous responses and the no-feedback control group did not. The feedback group displayed significantly greater recall overall and in specific content areas (i.e., procedures, protections, risks/benefits). Results support the use of corrected feedback for improving consent recall.     

Informed consent as a prescription calling for debate between analysts and researchers(1)

This article is a review of the international scientific literature on informed consent and its use in some of the constituent organizations of the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA). Because psychoanalysis comprises a theory based on practice, the dearth of clinical material for study, training and research purposes is a serious problem for analysts. Supervisions, presentations at scientific societies and congresses, publications and teaching material involve patients to an extent that goes beyond the work done in their sessions. Should consent be requested in these cases? This contribution addresses controversial and long‐standing issues such as informed consent and confidentiality, audio recording of treatments, knowledge production, the ambivalence of participating subjects over time and the perspective of analysts and patients respectively. The authors consider the various alternative approaches available for the handling of these ethical dilemmas without losing sight of the patient’s dignity and personal rights, while also taking account of the position of the analyst.     

Patient Expectations of Benefit from Phase I Clinical Trials: Linguistic Considerations in Diagnosing a Therapeutic Misconception

The ethical treatment of cancer patientsparticipating in clinical trials requiresthat patients are well-informed about thepotential benefits and risks associated withparticipation. When patients enrolled in phaseI clinical trials report that their chance ofbenefit is very high, this is often taken as evidence of a failure of the informed consent process. We argue, however, that some simple themes from the philosophy of language may make such a conclusion less certain. First, the patient may receive conflicting statements from multiple speakers about the expected outcome of the trial. Patients may be reporting the message they like best. Second, there is a potential problem of multivocality. Expressions of uncertainty of the frequency type(e.g., ``On average, 5 out of every 100 patientswill benefit') can be confused with expressionsof uncertainty of the belief type (e.g.,``The chance that I will benefit is about80%'). Patients may be informed using frequency-type statements and respond using belief-type statements. Third, each speech episode involving the investigator and the patient regarding outcomes may subservemultiple speech acts, some of which may beindirect. For example, a patient reporting ahigh expected benefit may be reporting a beliefabout the future, reassuring family members,and/or attempting to improve his or her outcome by apublic assertion of optimism. These sources oflinguistic confusion should be considered injudging whether the patient's reported expectation isgrounds for a bioethical concern that there hasbeen a failure in the informed consent process.     

Ethical and Regulatory Considerations for Using Social Media Platforms to Locate and Track Research Participants

As social media becomes increasingly popular, human subjects researchers are able to use these platforms to locate, track, and communicate with study participants, thereby increasing participant retention and the generalizability and validity of research. The use of social media; however, raises novel ethical and regulatory issues that have received limited attention in the literature and federal regulations. We review research ethics and regulations and outline the implications for maintaining participant privacy, respecting participant autonomy, and promoting researcher transparency when using social media to locate and track participants. We offer a rubric that can be used in future studies to determine ethical and regulation-consistent use of social media platforms and illustrate the rubric using our study team’s experience with Facebook. We also offer recommendations for both researchers and institutional review boards that emphasize the importance of well-described procedures for social media use as part of informed consent.     

Effectively Obtaining Informed Consent for Child and Adolescent Participation in Mental Health Research

With the recent expansion of child mental health research, more attention is being paid to the process of informed consent for research participation. For the consent to be truly informed, it is necessary that the relevant information be both disclosed and actually understood. Traditionally, much effort has gone to ensuring the comprehensiveness of consent/assent documents, which have progressively increased in length and complexity, whereas less attention has been paid to the comprehensibility of these documents. Available data indicate that many parent and children have difficulties appreciating the research nature of treatment studies and that a higher level of formal education among the parents is associated with a greater degree of understanding. Promising approaches to achieving truly informed research participation have emerged, such as additional time for parents to meet with the researchers and using postexplanation questionnaires for identifying issues in need of further clarification. Research is needed to develop and test strategies for improving the effectiveness of the informed consent process in child mental health.     

Active SETI and the Problem of Research Ethics

This article argues that research involving active SETI, or sending messages toward possible extraterrestrial intelligence (METI), is not ethically justifiable. As a way of working some of the ethical problems associated with METI, I approach the sending of a message from the perspective that it represents a research endeavor involving sentient beings and therefore, should undergo review by a university institutional review board (IRB). As such, METI should be expected to meet several criteria expected by IRBs as being necessary components of ethically justifiable research. By considering issues of proportionality, justice, informed consent, the likely success of obtaining desired results, and necessity and considering risks and benefits to research subjects, as well as the mandate to do no harm, it is evident that METI does not meet the requirements for ethical research on human subjects and, thus, should not be considered ethical when it comes to nonhuman sentient beings.     

“Paid to Endure”: Paid Research Participation,Passivity, and the Goods of Work

A growing literature documents the existence of individuals who make a living by participating in phase I clinical trials for money. Several scholars have noted that the concerns about risks, consent, and exploitation raised by this phenomenon apply to many (other) jobs, too, and therefore proposed improving subject protections by regulating phase I trial participation as work. This article contributes to the debate over this proposal by exploring a largely neglected worry. Unlike most (other) workers, subjects are not paid to produce or achieve anything but to have things done to them. I argue that this passivity is problematic for reasons of distributive justice. Specifically, it fails to enable subjects to realize what Gheaus and Herzog call “the goods of work”—a failure not offset by adequate opportunities to realize these goods outside of the research context. I also consider whether granting subjects worker-type protections would accommodate this concern.     

Child Assent and Parental Permission in Pediatric Research

Since children are considered incapable ofgiving informed consent to participate inresearch, regulations require that bothparental permission and the assent of thepotential child subject be obtained. Assent andpermission are uniquely bound together, eachserving a different purpose. Parentalpermission protects the child from assumingunreasonable risks. Assent demonstrates respectfor the child and his developing autonomy. Inorder to give meaningful assent, the child mustunderstand that procedures will be performed,voluntarily choose to undergo the procedures,and communicate this choice. Understanding theelements of informed consent has been theparadigm for assessing capacity to give assent.This method leaves the youngest, leastcognitively mature children vulnerable towaiver of assent and forced researchparticipation. Voluntariness can also becompromised by the influence of authorityfigures who can exert undue influence andcoerce children to participate in research. This paper discusses factors that may influencethe decision to give assent/permission,potential parent-child conflict in theassent/permission process and how it isresolved, and potential parental undueinfluence on research participation. Theseissues are illustrated with quotations drawnfrom a larger qualitative study of parentalpermission and child assent (data notpresented). We suggest a developmentalapproach, viewing assent as a continuum rangingfrom mere affirmation in the youngest childrento the equivalent of the informed consentprocess in the mature adolescent.     

Rethinking Research Ethics

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upoconcentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.     

Ethical Guidance for Selecting Clinical Trials to Receive Limited Space in an Immunotherapy Production Facility

Our aims are to (1) set forth a multiprinciple system for selecting among clinical trials competing for limited space in an immunotherapy production facility that supplies products under investigation by scientific investigators; (2) defend this system by appealing to justice principles; and (3) illustrate our proposal by showing how it might be implemented. Our overarching aim is to assist manufacturers of immunotherapeutic products and other potentially breakthrough experimental therapies with the ethical task of prioritizing requests from scientific investigators when production capacity is limited.