Chimpanzees as vulnerable subjects in research

Using an approach developed in the context of human bioethics, we argue that chimpanzees in research can be regarded as vulnerable subjects. This vulnerability is primarily due to communication barriers and situational factors—confinement and dependency—that make chimpanzees particularly susceptible to risks of harm and exploitation in experimental settings. In human research, individuals who are deemed vulnerable are accorded special protections. Using conceptual and moral resources developed in the context of research with vulnerable humans, we show how chimpanzees warrant additional safeguards against harm and exploitation paralleling those for human subjects. These safeguards should include empowering third parties to act as surrogate decision makers for chimpanzees, ensuring participant “assent,” and avoiding recruitment of animal subjects based merely on convenience.     

Virtual subjects: Using the Internet as an alternative source of subjects and research environment

This paper presents a rationale for why some researchers might consider using the Internet for research by addressing four issues. First, a few unique research opportunities afforded by the Internet are discussed. Second, the utility of using newsgroups and theTelnet protocol is described. Third, Internet research ethical guidelines in five areas are developed. Fourth, the data validity issue is addressed, and previous research using Internet and introductory psychology subject samples is replicated. The samples were similar on 5 of 7 demographic variables but differed in age and sex compositions, and response patterns for the two samples were similar to those reported previously . Finally, some limitations of the Internet are considered, as are its potentials to fulfill traditional research requirements and its use as an educational aid.     

Protection of animal research subjects

The use of experimental animals, mostly rodents, in biomedical research and especially in oncology and immunology should be acknowledged with respect, recognizing the contribution of animal experimentation in the fascinating scientific progress in these disciplines of research. It is an obligation of the investigator to justify the scientific and ethical aspects of each study requiring the use of animals. The international guiding principles for using animals in biomedical research are well defined and have been distributed worldwide by the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) since 1956, when this Organization was founded. In Poland the ICLAS philosophy and principles are highly respected and were implemented firstly by the members of the Commission on Biology of Experimental Animals appointed in 1962 by the Department of Medical Science of the Polish Academy of Science in Warsaw. Animal Protection Acts, first proclaimed in 1928 were gradually modified and improved. Actual legislation (enacted in 1997, 2003 and 2005) is consistent with EU Directives (86/609/EEC) and follows the internationally recommended principles that include ICLAS guidelines concerning animal welfare and care condition in biomedical research. The problem of “alternative methods” is briefly discussed. Dr. Donald Boisvert, CCAC — Canadian Council on Animal Care A lecture on the subject of this paper was presented at the 6th International Bioethics Conference entitled ‘The Responsible Conduct of Basic and Clinical Research’, held in Warsaw, Poland, 3–4 June 2005. The author is the National Representative of Polish Academy of Science to the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) and a Member of the ICLAS Governing Board.     

Enrolling decisionally incapacitated subjects in neuropsychiatric research

This paper discusses the National Bioethics Advisory Commission's (NBAC's) report on research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity. After placing the NBAC recommendations into their historic context, the authors propose a strategy to enroll decisionally incapacitated subjects into neuropsychiatric research. The authors maintained that their proposed consensus model for research authorization, utilizing subject advocates, fosters valuable clinical research while protecting potentially vulnerable subjects.