Should protections for research with humans who cannot consent apply to research with nonhuman primates?

Research studies and interventions sometimes offer potential benefits to subjects that compensate for the risks they face. Other studies and interventions, which I refer to as “nonbeneficial” research, do not offer subjects a compensating potential for benefit. These studies and interventions have the potential to exploit subjects for the benefit of others, a concern that is especially acute when investigators enroll individuals who are unable to give informed consent. US regulations for research with human subjects attempt to address this concern by mandating strict protections for nonbeneficial research with subjects who cannot consent. Typically, humans who cannot consent, such as children, may be enrolled in nonbeneficial research only when it poses low risks and has the potential to gather information of sufficient value to justify the risks, an appropriate surrogate gives permission on the individual’s behalf and the individual agrees (assents). In contrast, US regulations for nonbeneficial research with nonhuman primates do not include these protections, even though it too involves subjects who cannot consent and who face risks for the benefit of others. Is this difference in regulatory protections justified? Or does the principle of fairness—treat like cases alike—imply that regulations for nonbeneficial research with nonhuman primates should include protections similar to those that apply to nonbeneficial research with humans who cannot consent?     

When clinical care is like research: the need for review and consent

The prevailing “segregated model” for understanding clinical research sharply separates it from clinical care and subjects it to extensive regulations and guidelines. This approach is based on the fact that clinical research relies on procedures and methods—research biopsies, blinding, randomization, fixed treatment protocols, placebos—that pose risks and burdens to participants in order to collect data that might benefit all patients. Reliance on these methods raises the potential for exploitation and unfairness, and thus points to the need for independent ethical review and more extensive informed consent. In contrast, it is widely assumed that clinical care does not raise these ethical concerns because it is designed to promote the best interests of individual patients. The segregation of clinical research from clinical care has been largely effective at protecting research participants. At the same time, this approach ignores the fact that several aspects of standard clinical care, such as clinician training and scheduling, also pose some risks and burdens to present patients for the benefit of all patients. We argue that recently proposed learning health care systems offer a way to address this concern, and better protect patients, by developing integrated review and consent procedures. Specifically, current approaches base the need for independent ethical review and more extensive informed consent on whether an activity is categorized as clinical research or clinical care. An ethically sounder approach, which could be incorporated into learning health care systems, would be to base the need for independent ethical review and more extensive informed consent on the extent to which an activity poses risks to present patients for the benefit of all patients.     

A Study of the Impact of Informed Consent Procedures on Participant Responses in Trauma-Related Research

Researchers and ethics board members are often concerned about the possibility of adverse reactions to trauma-related research. While research has shown that participants in trauma-related studies rarely experience adverse reactions, mild short-term emotional distress is common. While a number of protections have been suggested to minimize risks for more vulnerable subgroups of participants, no research to date has tested how modifications to informed consent procedures may affect the data collected and participant reactions to the research. One-hundred and forty-five college students were separated into five conditions with different modifications to the informed consent procedures. Participants completed surveys on trauma experience, posttraumatic stress, coping, and reactions to research participation. The results showed no differences among the conditions on all outcome measures. It appears that modifications to informed consent procedures geared toward minimizing risk do not affect the quality of the data collected nor change reactions to participating in trauma-related research.     

Ethical issues in prison research: A risk/benefit analysis

Ethical issues in research are especially important when working with confined populations such as prisoners. One method that has been proposed to assist the decision-making process is the use of a risk/benefit model. The informed estimation of the probable risks and potential benefits of any given research project should be used to determine the ethical justifiability of conducting the research. The present article enumerates the variables relevant to a risk/benefit analysis when conducting research in a prison setting. Also, the risks of undue influence and the limits of confidentiality will be discussed. Finally, the appropriate use of informed consent will be discussed as a safeguard against these risks.     

Embodiment and Estrangement: Results from a First-in-Human “Intelligent BCI” Trial

While new generations of implantable brain computer interface (BCI) devices are being developed, evidence in the literature about their impact on the patient experience is lagging. In this article, we address this knowledge gap by analysing data from the first-in-human clinical trial to study patients with implanted BCI advisory devices. We explored perceptions of self-change across six patients who volunteered to be implanted with artificially intelligent BCI devices. We used qualitative methodological tools grounded in phenomenology to conduct in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Results show that, on the one hand, BCIs can positively increase a sense of the self and control; on the other hand, they can induce radical distress, feelings of loss of control, and a rupture of patient identity. We conclude by offering suggestions for the proactive creation of preparedness protocols specific to intelligent—predictive and advisory—BCI technologies essential to prevent potential iatrogenic harms.

     

Informed Consent in Asymmetrical Relationships: an Investigation into Relational Factors that Influence Room for Reflection

In recent years, informed consent has been suggested as a way to deal with risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. We argue that while we can learn from experiences with informed consent in treatment and research contexts, we should be aware that informed consent traditionally pertains to certain features of the relationships between doctors and patients and researchers and research participants, rather than those between producers and consumers and employers and employees, which are more prominent in the case of engineered nanomaterials. To better understand these differences, we identify three major relational factors that influence whether valid informed consent is obtainable, namely dependency, personal proximity, and existence of shared interests. We show that each type of relationship offers different opportunities for reflection and therefore poses distinct challenges for obtaining valid informed consent. Our analysis offers a systematic understanding of the possibilities for attaining informed consent in the context of nanomaterial risks and makes clear that measures or regulations to improve the obtainment of informed consent should be attuned to the specific interpersonal relations to which it is supposed to apply.     

Conducting industrial and organizational psychological research: institutional review of research in work organizations

Although informed consent is a primary mechanism for ensuring the ethical treatment of human participants in research, both federal guidelines and American Psychological Association ethical standards recognize that exceptions to it are reasonable under certain conditions. However, agreement about what constitutes a reasonable exception to informed consent is sometimes lacking. We presented the same protocols to samples of respondents drawn from 4 populations: Institutional review board (IRB) members, managers, employees, and university faculty who were not members of IRBs. Differences in perceptions of IRB members from the other samples with respect to the risks of the protocols without informed consent and on the feasibility of conducting the research in employment organizations are discussed in terms of implications for industrial and organizational psychology research.     

Conducting Industrial and Organizational Psychological Research: Institutional Review of Research in Work Organizations

Although informed consent is a primary mechanism for ensuring the ethical treatment of human participants in research, both federal guidelines and American Psychological Association ethical standards recognize that exceptions to it are reasonable under certain conditions. However, agreement about what constitutes a reasonable exception to informed consent is sometimes lacking. We presented the same protocols to samples of respondents drawn from 4 populations: Institutional review board (IRB) members, managers, employees, and university faculty who were not members of IRBs. Differences in perceptions of IRB members from the other samples with respect to the risks of the protocols without informed consent and on the feasibility of conducting the research in employment organizations are discussed in terms of implications for industrial and organizational psychology research.     

Black Boxing Restraints: The Need for Full Disclosure and Consent

In this article we discuss the necessity of fully informing patients and their families of what constitutes physical interventions and their attendant risks under the established principles and obligations of informed consent. After a brief review of the elements of informed consent and the nature of the duty to advise patients and their families of treatment risks, we argue that physical interventions are an unvalidated treatment for aggressive and violent behavior and should be used only as a safety intervention. We focus our discussion on the informed consent issues for school aged children, adolescents, and emancipated minors and contend that if restraints are used they must pose less risk than the behavior they are trying to alleviate. We also opine that if restraints are misused by mental health or child welfare treatment settings, then their misuse may be considered a subject of a patient maltreatment, abuse, criminal or civil action. A central thesis of the article is that informed consent must be seen as an integral and dynamic process of treatment. We recommend strategies that gain parental permission and child assent, that view informed consent as a dynamic and individualized process that aids and supports the therapeutic relationship, and that stress the importance of simplicity and clarity.     

Intervention Research with Youths at Elevated Risk for Suicide: Meeting the Ethical and Regulatory Challenges of Informed Consent and Assent

Intervention research with youths at elevated risk for suicidal behavior and suicide—a vulnerable and high risk population—presents investigators with numerous ethical challenges. This report specifically addresses those challenges involving the informed consent and assent process with parents/guardians and youths. The challenges are delineated in the context of pertinent laws and regulatory requirements, and guidelines are suggested for their practical resolution. These are illustrated with case examples from NIMH‐funded intervention trials. Through the sharing of such methodological information, intervention researchers can support each other in conducting ethical research in a manner that does not unduly compromise scientific rigor.     

Ethical and legal issues in conducting research involving elderly subjects

Older people are increasingly the focus of biomedical and behavioral research not only because the elderly constitute the fastest growing segment of our population but because there is a societal concern to improve the elderly's quality of life. The profound need to advance that research carries with it an equally profound obligation to protect the rights and welfare of elderly research subjects, and thus raises difficult ethical and legal issues. Against a background of foundational principles for the protection of human subjects, we discuss whether older subjects should be treated as a special class, the ethical and legal issues over informed consent, capacities for consent, and special problems related to cognitive impairment. We discuss surrogate/proxy consent procedures in research, recruitment of elderly subjects, conflicts of interest, special problems regarding institutional research, and risk/benefit analyses. We offer recommendations and practical guidelines for conducting current and future research involving elderly participants.     

美国与知情同意有关的一些问题

知情同意是医疗保健和医学研究的一个基本的伦理学要求。这两种情况中,当医学研究的知情同意标准比医疗保健要求更加严格时,知情同意包含了3种要素：（1）告知病人或受试者该研究的性质。包括益处,危险和其他有关内容;（2）确保病人受试者理解所提供的信息;（3）得到病人或受试者自愿的同意,没有能力参与知情同意的病人包括患痴呆和危重病等无决断 能力的病人,这些病人属弱势病人。如要获许对他们的疾病进行研究,我们必须制定保护弱势受试者有效的伦理政策,提出了关于对痴呆病人、危重病人,脑死亡病人研究的伦理学政策。     

Informed consent in the psychosis prodrome: ethical,procedural and cultural considerations

Research focused on the prodromal period prior to the onset of psychosis is essential for the further development of strategies for early detection, early intervention, and disease pre-emption. Such efforts necessarily require the enrollment of individuals who are at risk of psychosis but have not yet developed a psychotic illness into research and treatment protocols. This work is becoming increasingly internationalized, which warrants special consideration of cultural differences in conceptualization of mental illness and international differences in health care practices and rights regarding research participation. The process of identifying and requesting informed consent from individuals at elevated risk for psychosis requires thoughtful communication about illness risk and often involves the participation of family members. Empirical studies of risk reasoning and decisional capacity in young people and individuals with psychosis suggest that most individuals who are at-risk for psychosis can adequately provide informed consent; however ongoing improvements to tools and procedures are important to ensure that this work proceeds with maximal consideration of relevant ethical issues. This review provides a discussion of these issues in the context of international research efforts.     

“Not Tied Up Neatly with a Bow”: Professionals’ Challenging Cases in Informed Consent for Genomic Sequencing

As the use of genomic technology has expanded in research and clinical settings, issues surrounding informed consent for genome and exome sequencing have surfaced. Despite the importance of informed consent, little is known about the specific challenges that professionals encounter when consenting patients or research participants for genomic sequencing. We interviewed 29 genetic counselors and research coordinators with considerable experience obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing to understand their experiences and perspectives. As part of this interview, 24 interviewees discussed an informed consent case they found particularly memorable or challenging. We analyzed these case examples to determine the primary issue or challenge represented by each case. Challenges fell into two domains: participant understanding, and facilitating decisions about testing or research participation. Challenges related to participant understanding included varying levels of general and genomic literacy, difficulty managing participant expectations, and contextual factors that impeded participant understanding. Challenges related to facilitating decision-making included complicated family dynamics such as disagreement or coercion, situations in which it was unclear whether sequencing research would be a good use of participant time or resources, and situations in which the professional experienced disagreement or discomfort with participant decisions. The issues highlighted in these case examples are instructive in preparing genetics professionals to obtain informed consent for genomic sequencing.     

The placebo phenomenon and medical ethics: Rethinking the relationship between informed consent and risk–benefit assessment

It has been presumed within bioethics that the benefits and risks of treatments can be assessed independently of information disclosure to patients as part of the informed consent process. Research on placebo and nocebo effects indicates that this is not true for symptomatic treatments. The benefits and risks that patients experience from symptomatic treatments can be shaped powerfully by information about these treatments provided by clinicians. In this paper we discuss the implications of placebo and nocebo research for risk–benefit assessment and informed consent.     

More than meets the eye: a consideration of the influence of a counsellor's visual impairment upon his therapeutic relationships

Other than through personal reflection and anecdotal evidence, I have had little opportunity to explore the influence of my visual impairment upon my therapeutic relationships. In order to address this, I conducted three research conversations with former clients (participants), each of whom had expressed an interest in participating in the research. Potential participants also had to meet the inclusion criteria for the research and provide informed consent prior to their participation. Research conversations were conducted between March and July 2009 and were analysed qualitatively, using a method informed by Moustakas's heuristic inquiry. Participants demonstrated idiosyncratic responses to my visual impairment; their perception of their responses to my visual impairment sometimes differed from mine. Feelings identified included uncertainty, disappointment and relief. My visual impairment appeared to influence the therapeutic relationship in a variety of ways, including resonance with the inner world significance of disability to the participant and interaction with my personal process. While not the therapeutic agent, my visual impairment had the potential to act as a catalyst in therapeutic change. The potential for me to either under-estimate or over-estimate the significance of my visual impairment highlights the need for continued self-awareness and the maintenance of an open and non-defensive attitude.     

The concept of risk and responsible conduct of research

Assessment of risk is one of the key issues in the field of responsible conduct of research which covers discourses of research ethics and research integrity. The principle of minimizing risks and balancing of risks and benefits is one of the main requirements of research ethics. In addition, the content of informed consent that is another fundamental principle of research ethics derives from the assessment of risks and benefits related to a particular research project. Risk assessment also plays a crucial role in methodological design of the research project. This is an important point where research ethics and research integrity discourses overlap. Firstly, because the choice of a control group (e.g., placebo control) is a key ethical issue related to the protection of the research subjects' interests. Secondly, because the quality of the research data, that is one of the key elements of research integrity, is closely connected to the choice of research methodology as well. The problem of biased interpretation or manipulation of risk related features of biomedical research should also be taken into account. Despite the importance of the concept of risk to the field of biomedical research, its relevance has not yet attracted a sufficient attention in the responsible conduct of research debate.     

Harms and deprivation of benefits for nonhuman primates in research

The risks of harm to nonhuman primates, and the absence of benefits for them, are critically important to decisions about nonhuman primate research. Current guidelines for review and practice tend to be permissive for nonhuman primate research as long as minimal welfare requirements are fulfilled and human medical advances are anticipated. This situation is substantially different from human research, in which risks of harms to the individual subject are typically reduced to the extent feasible. A risk threshold is needed for the justification of research on nonhuman primates, comparable to the way risk thresholds are set for vulnerable human subjects who cannot provide informed consent. Much of the laboratory research conducted today has inadequate standards, leading to common physical, psychological, and social harms.     

Audit of the Informed Consent Process as a Part of a Clinical Research Quality Assurance Program

Audits of the informed consent process are a key element of a clinical research quality assurance program. A systematic approach to such audits has not been described in the literature. In this paper we describe two components of the audit. The first is the audit of the informed consent document to verify adherence with federal regulations. The second component is comprised of the audit of the informed consent conference, with emphasis on a real time review of the appropriate communication of the key elements of the informed consent. Quality measures may include preparation of an informed consent history log, notes to accompany the informed consent, the use of an informed consent feedback tool, and the use of institutional surveys to assess comprehension of the informed consent process.     

Sign on the Dotted Line: The Informed Consent Process (ICP) as Induced Compliance1

We investigated the social implications of signing an informed consent form (ICF) on participant behavior. ICF research fails to consider that the decision to participate in research is a process that occurs in a social and cultural context. Understanding the meaning of giving consent in this social context is critical. In separate experiments, we found significantly greater agreement to return to complete a study and persistence at a task in participants who signed the ICF versus those who did not. Signing the ICF may be putting participants at risk of induced compliance with study protocols, rather than empowering them to withhold consent or withdraw. Future research should investigate the psychosocial factors affecting participants' decision making in the informed consent process.