Disclosing conflicts of interest to research subjects: an ethical and legal analysis

In this article, I examine the ethical and legal issues related to disclosure of conflicts of interest to research subjects, and discuss some empirical studies related to the topic. I argue that researchers have an ethical obligation to disclose conflicts of interest to research subjects, provided that they take steps to help subjects understand information about conflicts of interest and how to interpret it. Researchers also may have a legal duty to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects, depending on the facts of the case and the court's interpretation of the law. To reinforce and clarify the legal obligation to disclose conflicts of interest, the federal regulations should be amended to include disclosure of conflicts of interest as one of the informed consent requirements. Institutional review boards play a key role in helping researchers to disclose conflicts of interest to subjects in an appropriate manner. Institutional review boards should approve the disclosure language in informed consent documents, and they should require researchers to disclose financial interests to research subjects, if they have any, as a condition of approval.     

Disclosing Conflicts of Interest to Research Subjects: An Ethical and Legal Analysis

In this article, I examine the ethical and legal issues related to disclosure of conflicts of interest to research subjects, and discuss some empirical studies related to the topic. I argue that researchers have an ethical obligation to disclose conflicts of interest to research subjects, provided that they take steps to help subjects understand information about conflicts of interest and how to interpret it. Researchers also may have a legal duty to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects, depending on the facts of the case and the court's interpretation of the law. To reinforce and clarify the legal obligation to disclose conflicts of interest, the federal regulations should be amended to include disclosure of conflicts of interest as one of the informed consent requirements. Institutional review boards play a key role in helping researchers to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects in an appropriate manner. Institutional review boards should approve the disclosure language in informed consent documents, and they should require researchers to disclose financial interests to research subjects, if they have any, as a condition of approval.     

Canadian policy on reporting breaches of research integrity: When should Research Ethics Boards be informed?

ABSTRACT

In Canada, institutions that receive research funding from the three federal granting agencies must establish research ethics boards (REBs) to review the ethical acceptability of research involving humans. Institutions are also expected to promote the responsible conduct of research, fostering researchers’ abilities to act with integrity in the conduct of their research. Where a researcher fails to act with integrity in research with humans, institutional policies and procedures of the U15, Canada’s most research-intensive universities, vary in the extent to which they involve their REBs in response to such breaches. Some make no mention of the REB, whereas others state that their REB should be provided with information relating to upheld allegations. In this paper, we argue that when allegations of research integrity breaches are corroborated, the institution’s REB should be identified as a party required to receive that information. Only then can REBs ensure compliance with research ethics standards, which is essential to maintain the public’s trust.     

Clarifying the concept of the “Social” in risk assessments for human subjects research

International guidelines for the conduct of research with human participants, such as those put forth by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS, 2002), recommend that research review committees account for social risk and benefits to society in their review of proposed research. What do the concepts of the “social” and “society” mean in the context of the review of human participants research? Here we analyze concepts of social and society to define the terms: social harm, social risk, social benefit, and benefits to society. We argue that use of these terms invite more questions than answers and beg for difficult empirical research to determine the nature, likelihood, and magnitude of this category of risk and benefit. Until more research is done and these questions are answered, we advise reviewers to adopt an attitude of provisionalism and caution in their review of specifically “social” risks and benefits and “benefits to society.”     

Reactions to Research Participation in Vulnerable Subgroups

This paper describes the extent to which vulnerable individuals (defined by economic, social, psychological, physical health, and child maltreatment status) react to research participation. As part of an ongoing longitudinal study, participants (N = 896) completed a lengthy and intrusive in-person interview and provided a small amount of blood through finger pricks. At the end of the interview, participants were asked eight questions about their reactions to the research experience. Vulnerable individuals in general agreed more strongly about having an emotional reaction, but were not less willing to continue to participate. In addition, psychologically vulnerable individuals more strongly agreed they would continue to participate, were treated with respect and dignity, and found their participation meaningful. Compared to whites, nonwhites reported stronger agreement about the meaningfulness of the research and the belief that their responses would be kept private. Like others, individuals vulnerable by virtue of their prisoner status or homelessness (past or current) agreed more strongly about having an emotional reaction to the interview, but otherwise did not differ in their reactions. These results suggest that researchers and institutional review boards should not be deterred from conducting research on sensitive topics with potentially vulnerable populations.     

Reactions to research participation in vulnerable subgroups

This paper describes the extent to which vulnerable individuals (defined by economic, social, psychological, physical health, and child maltreatment status) react to research participation. As part of an ongoing longitudinal study, participants (N=896) completed a lengthy and intrusive in-person interview and provided a small amount of blood through finger pricks. At the end of the interview, participants were asked eight questions about their reactions to the research experience. Vulnerable individuals in general agreed more strongly about having an emotional reaction, but were not less willing to continue to participate. In addition, psychologically vulnerable individuals more strongly agreed they would continue to participate, were treated with respect and dignity, and found their participation meaningful. Compared to whites, nonwhites reported stronger agreement about the meaningfulness of the research and the belief that their responses would be kept private. Like others, individuals vulnerable by virtue of their prisoner status or homelessness (past or current) agreed more strongly about having an emotional reaction to the interview, but otherwise did not differ in their reactions. These results suggest that researchers and institutional review boards should not be deterred from conducting research on sensitive topics with potentially vulnerable populations.     

Public Service Quality Improvements: A Case for Exemption from IRB Review of Public Administration Research

Should the exemption from Institutional Review Board (IRB) evaluations currently in place for quality improvements research be extended to public administration research that addresses questions of improving the quality of public service delivery? As a means to both reduce the level of disdain held by a group of social science researchers for IRBs and to reduce the cost of review for minimal risk studies, I argue here that much of the current public administration research should also be exempted from normal processes of review by IRBs on the basis of their similarity to Quality Improvements (QI) research, a category of studies already granted exemption. This argument dovetails provisions currently in place for studies of public service and public benefit, but reframes these exemptions in the language of “quality improvements,” which may be a more comfortable language for IRBs concerned to demonstrate compliance for review of all fields. To expedite this argument into the practices of IRBs, I included a checklist that researchers could use to self-identify their studies as QI, not research as such.     

Bad news about bad news: the disclosure of risks to insurability in research consent processes

One of the phenomena associated with research is "incidental findings," that is, unexpected findings made during the research, and outside the scope of the research, which have potential health importance. One underappreciated risk of incidental findings is the potential loss of the research subject's insurability; or if a research subject fails to disclose incidental findings when applying for insurance, the insurance contract may be voidable by the insurer. In this article, we seek to explain the insurability risks associated with incidental findings and to make recommendations for how researchers and research ethics committees should address the issue of disclosure of these risks.     

Medical school guidelines for investigating misconduct and fraud in science

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are legally required to determine whether the balance between the risks and benefits (the risk-benefit ratio or RBR) of a proposed study is “reasonable” or “proportional”. This obligation flows from their duty to protect the interests of research subjects. It has been argued that it is difficult, perhaps even impossible for IRBs to determine the RBR of studies, because the risks and benefits are not only heterogeneous, but also incommensurable. After arguing that the relevant meaning of incommensurability is incomparability, we discuss whether the risks of participating in a trial and the benefits are comparable. We conclude that at least the risks and the benefits to participants are comparable. In the last section we show that the main problem of RBR analyses is that of interpersonal incompensability. IRBs have to assume that risks to research subjects be compensated by benefits to others. The question is: To what extent? When does it become unreasonable to ask that patients accept the risks of participating in a trial for the benefit of science and/or future patients?     

Are risks and benefits of oncological research protocols both incommensurable and incompensable?

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are legally required to determine whether the balance between the risks and benefits (the risk-benefit ratio or RBR) of a proposed study is "reasonable" or "proportional". This obligation flows from their duty to protect the interests of research subjects. It has been argued that it is difficult, perhaps even impossible for IRBs to determine the RBR of studies, because the risks and benefits are not only heterogeneous, but also incommensurable. After arguing that the relevant meaning of incommensurability is incomparability, we discuss whether the risks of participating in a trial and the benefits are comparable. We conclude that at least the risks and the benefits to participants are comparable. In the last section we show that the main problem of RBR analyses is that of interpersonal incompensability. IRBs have to assume that risks to research subjects be compensated by benefits to others. The question is: To what extent? When does it become unreasonable to ask that patients accept the risks of participating in a trial for the benefit of science and/or future patients?     

Disclosure of Unknown Harms in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Research

Unknown harms are by their nature difficult to communicate. While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has known risks (e.g., metal projectiles, dislodgement of medical implants), this imaging modality also has potential unknown long-term negative health effects associated with its static magnetic fields. We carried out a research ethics board (REB) file review of previously approved MRI research studies and found that unknown risks were either left undisclosed or were inadequately disclosed to research participants and REBs. This article outlines issues raised by our REB file review and suggests steps that should be taken in order to satisfactorily communicate information about potential unknown harms of MRI.     

Disclosure of Individualized Research Results: A Precautionary Approach

Assessing and managing risks to participants is a central point of contention in the debate about disclosing individualized research results. Those who favor disclosure of only clinically significant results think that disclosing clinically insignificant results is risky and costly, and that harm prevention should take precedence over other ethical considerations. Those who favor giving participants the option of full disclosure regard these risks as insubstantial, and think that obligations to benefit participants and promote their autonomy and right to know outweigh the obligation to prevent harm or financial considerations. The risks of disclosing clinically insignificant research results are currently not quantifiable, due to lack of empirical data. The precautionary principle provides some insight into this debate because it applies to decision-making concerning risks that are plausible but not quantifiable. A precautionary approach would favor full disclosure of individualized results with appropriate safeguards to prevent, minimize, or mitigate risks to participants, such as: validating testing methods; informing participants about their options for receiving tests results and the potential benefits and risks related to receiving results; assessing participants' comfort with handling uncertainty; providing counseling and advice to participants; following-up with individuals who receive tests results; and forming community advisory boards to help investigators deal with issues related to disclosure.     

Disclosure of individualized research results: a precautionary approach

Assessing and managing risks to participants is a central point of contention in the debate about disclosing individualized research results. Those who favor disclosure of only clinically significant results think that disclosing clinically insignificant results is risky and costly, and that harm prevention should take precedence over other ethical considerations. Those who favor giving participants the option of full disclosure regard these risks as insubstantial, and think that obligations to benefit participants and promote their autonomy and right to know outweigh the obligation to prevent harm or financial considerations. The risks of disclosing clinically insignificant research results are currently not quantifiable, due to lack of empirical data. The precautionary principle provides some insight into this debate because it applies to decision-making concerning risks that are plausible but not quantifiable. A precautionary approach would favor full disclosure of individualized results with appropriate safeguards to prevent, minimize, or mitigate risks to participants, such as: validating testing methods; informing participants about their options for receiving tests results and the potential benefits and risks related to receiving results; assessing participants' comfort with handling uncertainty; providing counseling and advice to participants; following-up with individuals who receive tests results; and forming community advisory boards to help investigators deal with issues related to disclosure.     

Ethical consideration of the research proposal and the informed-consent process: An online survey of researchers and ethics committee members in Thailand

Researchers designing and conducting studies using human data should consider the values and principles of ethical conduct. Research ethics committees (RECs) typically evaluate the ethical acceptability of research proposals. Sometimes, differences arise between how researchers and RECs interpret ethical principles, and how they decide what constitutes ethical conduct. This study aimed to explore the opinions of these two groups about the importance of core ethical issues in the proposal and in the informed-consent process. An anonymous online questionnaire was distributed to a target population in health-related academic/research institutes across Thailand; 219 researchers and 72 REC members participated. Significantly, more REC members than researchers attributed the highest importance to three core ethical considerations – risk/benefit, vulnerability, and confidentiality/privacy. For the informed-consent process, significant differences were found for communication of risks, decision-making authority for consent, process for approaching study participants, and availability of a contact for study deviations/violations. The different ratings indicate differences in the groups’ perspectives on ethical principles, which may affect focal congruence on ethical issues in the proposal. Communication of these findings should help close gaps between REC and researcher perceptions. Further study should investigate how RECs and researchers perceive equivocal ethics terms.     

Informed consent for research on stored blood and tissue samples: a survey of institutional review board practices

Numerous position papers have outlined informed consent recommendations for the collection, storage, and future use of biological samples; however, there currently is no consensus regarding what kinds of information should be included in consent forms. This study aimed to determine whether institutional review boards (IRBs) vary in their informed consent requirements for research on stored biological samples, and whether any variation observed could be correlated to factors such as volume of work, IRB members' familiarity with ethical issues in genetic research, and IRBs' use of either of two policy guidelines as resources. A brief survey was mailed to all IRB chairpersons on a mailing list obtained from the Office for Human Research Protections. Survey questions included whether consent forms for the collection of biological samples for future use address each of six provisions recommended in current guidelines and position statements, and whether IRBs used the Office for Protection from Research Risks' 1993 Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook, chapter 5 (hereinafter IRB Guidebook) or the National Bioethics Advisory Commission's 1999 Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, Volume I (hereinafter Report) in their deliberations. Despite a low response rate (22%, 427 respondents), results indicate that IRB practices vary substantially. The degree to which the provisions were included in consent forms was found to correlate positively with IRBs that review a greater volume of protocols annually, those that use the National Bioethics Advisory Commission Report in their deliberations, and those that draw on both the Report and the IRB Guidebook.     

Looking Back to Move Forward: The Value of Reflexive Journaling for Novice Researchers

For novice qualitative researchers, each encounter in the field yields a ream of questions and uncertainties. While fieldwork has inherent ambiguities for all researchers, novice researchers have less experience on which to draw to assess their interactions with participants. Adding to this uncertainty, gerontological fieldwork is frequently imbued by age-and cohort-related nuances, characteristics which new researchers often do not share with participants. It is also not uncommon for new researchers to work primarily alone on projects, such as dissertations and theses. Mentors and academic advisors can help examine research encounters, however advice may be most constructive following engagement in reflexive exercises. We discuss the benefits of using reflexive journaling to assist with answering the many questions generated while conducting qualitative interviews during a study with family carers. Advisors should consider encouraging the use of reflexive journaling to help novices grow as researchers.     

Individuals' Estimates of the Risks of Death: Part II—New Evidence

Using new survey data, we test the hypothesis that individuals' perceptions of health and safety risks are unbiased. While we find that respondents' estimates of those risks are sensitive to the information they are given to anchor their responses, we find no evidence to support the widely held view that people tend to underestimate the frequency of relatively common risks. The slight tendency for respondents to overestimate the frequency of extremely unlikely events can plausibly be interpreted as truncation bias. Overall, the accuracy of our subjects' estimates varies in a manner that is fully consistent with simple conjectures about the health and safety information that is of greatest relevance to them in the conduct of their lives. The marked difference between the results of our survey and those of previous studies appears to be attributable to the practical implications of costly information and the common failure of investigators to account for the fact that rational individuals will choose to acquire less than full information about many uncertain events.     

The impact of information and computer based training on negotiators' performance

This paper presents the results of an experiment on negotiation, designed to measure the impact of (1) computerized training and (2) information on negotiators' performanceThe paper is structured as follows. First, we review the literature on negotiation training. Second, we develop a conceptual framework to link various forms of Negotiation Support Systems to joint and individual negotiation performance. Third, we present the negotiation paradigm — a bilateral monopoly — and the computerized training system we used. Regarding training, our results show an asymmetric impact on individual performance levels and, unexpectedly, a negative impact on negotiators' joint performance. In contrast, more information improves both individual and joint performance. Finally, we discuss these results, and outline further research questions.     

What a Tangled Web We Weave: Ethical and Legal Implications of Deception in Recruitment

Deception in human subject research is neither uncommon nor prohibited. The use of deception in the recruitment phase of clinical research has received relatively little attention. Given that informed consent is foundational to human subject research, the practice of misrepresenting the study purpose in clinical research would seem to contradict one of the fundamental tenets of ethical human subjects research. Using the example of prodromal psychosis, this article the ethical and legal implications of deception in recruitment and the sufficiency of current guidance on the practice when the study involves a stigmatizing condition, the collection of genetic samples, or both. I conclude that when these two elements are present, deception should only be used when absolutely necessary and, if used, researchers should be required to debrief participants before the collection of genetic samples and give particular attention to minimizing risks of privacy breaches.