Minimal Risk in Pediatric Research: A Philosophical Review and Reconsideration

Despite more than thirty years of debate, disagreement persists among research ethicists about the most appropriate way to interpret the U.S. regulations on pediatric research, specifically the categories of “minimal risk” and a “minor increase over minimal risk.” Focusing primarily on the definition of “minimal risk,” we argue in this article that the continued debate about the pediatric risk categories is at least partly because their conceptual status is seldom considered directly. Once this is done, it becomes clear that the most popular strategy for interpreting “minimal risk”—defining it as a specific set of risks—is indefensible and, from a pragmatic perspective, unlikely to resolve disagreement. Primarily this is because judgments about minimal risk are both normative and heavily intuitive in nature and thus cannot easily be captured by reductions to a given set of risks. We suggest instead that a more defensible approach to evaluating risk should incorporate room for reflection and deliberation. This dispositional, deliberative framework can nonetheless accommodate a number of intellectual resources for reducing reliance on sheer intuition and improving the quality of risk evaluations.     

Too Many Rationales,Not Enough Reason: A Call to Examine the Goals of Including Lay Members on Institutional Review Boards

Every major U.S. commission appointed to review Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) as well as numerous reports and scholarly articles have recommended increasing the number of lay (nonscientist and unaffiliated) members on IRBs. Meanwhile, qualitative studies have shown that lay IRB members experience confusion about their roles, including ambiguity whether their roles are different from other members of the board. Without articulating the unique reasons why unaffiliated and nonscientist members are needed, IRBs have little guidance on how to recruit and train these members, and how many should be at the table. By looking back through the history of IRB regulations, policies, and commentaries we can articulate unique contributions these members can make. Only with these contributions in mind can we make arguments for how to best achieve them and make the case that increasing their numbers is necessary.     

Person-oriented research ethics: integrating relational and everyday ethics in research

Research ethics is often understood by researchers primarily through the regulatory framework reflected in the research ethics review process. This regulatory understanding does not encompass the range of ethical considerations in research, notably those associated with the relational and everyday aspects of human subject research. In order to support researchers in their effort to adopt a broader lens, this article presents a “person-oriented research ethics” approach. Five practical guideposts of person-oriented research ethics are identified, as follows: (1) respect for holistic personhood; (2) acknowledgement of lived world; (3) individualization; (4) focus on researcher-participant relationships; and (5) empowerment in decision-making. These guideposts are defined and illustrated with respect to different aspects of the research process (e.g., research design, recruitment, data collection). The person-oriented research ethics approach provides a toolkit to individual researchers, research groups, and research institutions in both biomedical and social science research wishing to expand their commitment to ethics in research.     

'Text-work' in Research Ethics Review: The significance of documents in and beyond committee meetings

ABSTRACT

This article analyzes how a formal text (the Ethics Review Form) available at National Health Service Research Ethics Committees (NHSRECs) in the United Kingdom was used in meetings. Derived from the work of Dorothy Smith on incorporating texts into institutional ethnography (IE), it proposes the concept of “text work” as a way into understanding more about decision-making in ethics review and describes the extent to which this formal text shaped and influenced review work. The research study used observations of committee meetings, field-notes and interviews to produce an ethnographic mapping of Research Ethics Committees’ (RECs) work. This article draws on one aspect of the research which was the process of isolating a particular, ubiquitous text and analyzing how it worked and was worked on in the meetings. The analysis contributes to contemporary discussion offering an alternative to ongoing debates about idealized ways of conducting ethics review. Finally, some tentative suggestions are made about improving training, based on and starting from the work which reviewers undertake.     

Anticipated Ethics and Regulatory Challenges in PCORnet: The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network

PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, seeks to establish a robust national health data network for patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. This article reports the results of a PCORnet survey designed to identify the ethics and regulatory challenges anticipated in network implementation. A 12-item online survey was developed by leadership of the PCORnet Ethics and Regulatory Task Force; responses were collected from the 29 PCORnet networks. The most pressing ethics issues identified related to informed consent, patient engagement, privacy and confidentiality, and data sharing. High priority regulatory issues included IRB coordination, privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, and data sharing. Over 150 IRBs and five different approaches to managing multisite IRB review were identified within PCORnet. Further empirical and scholarly work, as well as practical and policy guidance, is essential if important initiatives that rely on comparative effectiveness research are to move forward.     

The protection of unrepresented patients in emergency care research

In emergency care research, it may be the case that neither informed consent nor surrogate consent is possible. In order to nonetheless allow for such research, codes and regulations of research ethics have increasingly incorporated provisions regarding this specific situation. The protection that those provisions offer need to be better understood. This article addresses in what ways they protect individuals, and especially the extent to which the suggested protection compensates for the loss of surrogate consent. The Declaration of Helsinki, the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and the EU Clinical Trials Regulation serve as the main illustrations.     

The Expanding Purview: Institutional Review Boards and the Review of Human Subjects Research

The implications of the institutional review board (IRB) system's growing purview are examined. Among the issues discussed are whether IRBs are censoring research and whether the IRB review process fundamentally alters the research that is being conducted. The intersection between IRB review and free speech is also explored. In general, it is argued that the review system for human subjects research (HSR) should be modified in order to limit the scope of IRB review.     

Letters to the editor

This article proposes that an assessment of commercial feasibility should be integrated as a prerequisite for human clinical testing to improve the quality and relevance of materials being investigated, as an ethical aspect for human subject protection, and as a means of improving accountability where clinical development is funded on promises of successful translational research. A commercial feasibility analysis is not currently required to justify human clinical testing, but is assumed to have been conducted by industry participants, and use of public funds for clinical trials should be defensible in the same manner. Plant-made vaccines (PMVs) are offered in this discussion as a model for evaluating the relevance of commercial feasibility before human clinical testing. PMVs have been proposed as a potential solution for global health, based on a vision of immunizing the world against many infectious diseases. Such a vision depends on translating current knowledge in plant science and immunology into a potent vaccine that can be readily manufactured and distributed to those in need. But new biologics such as PMVs may fail to be manufactured due to financial or logistical reasons—particularly for orphan diseases without sufficient revenue incentive for industry investment—regardless of the effectiveness which might be demonstrated in human clinical testing. Moreover, all potential instruments of global health depend on translational agents well beyond the lab in order to reach those in need. A model comprising five criteria for commercial feasibility is suggested for inclusion by regulators and ethics review boards as part of the review process prior to approval of human clinical testing. Use of this model may help to facilitate safe and appropriate translational research and bring more immediate benefits to those in need.     

EXCLUDING PARTICULAR INFORMATION FROM CONSENT FORMS

Although the informed consent process is crucial to protecting human research subjects, there are cases when particular information within the consent form may present risks to those subjects. In this paper, we examine a case in which including the sponsor’s name on the consent form may allow the form to serve as a surrogate for subjects’ HIV status.

There is no literature addressing the ethical acceptability of excluding particular information from consent forms, and there exists little regulatory guidance on this issue. We argue that excluding information from the consent form is, in fact, obligatory when that information is disclosed orally during the consent process but its presence on the form poses risks to the subjects the consent process is designed to protect. Further, we argue that the regulations ought to be amended to reflect this obligation.     

What is Recklessness in Scientific Research? The Frank Sauer Case

On May 22, 2017, administrative law Judge Leslie Rogall of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, ruled in favor of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) concerning its decision to charge former University of California at Riverside biochemistry professor Frank Sauer with research misconduct for fabricating or falsifying digital image data included in three papers and seven grant applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health. More specifically, Sauer was deemed responsible for manipulating, reusing, and falsely labeling images of autoradiograms and gels in his research in epigenetics. One month after this decision, ORI announced its final ruling concerning Sauer, which barred him from serving in any advisory capacity to the Public Health Services and required him to retract affected papers. The case raises some interesting and important questions concerning research integrity because it focused on the legal issue of what constitutes recklessness in scientific research.     

Guinea Pigs on the payroll: The ethics of paying research subjects

Regulatory bodies and scholars have traditionally conceptualized biomedical research on healthy subjects in the same way as research on patients. Guidelines and regulations have portrayed payment to a healthy subject as a potential constraint, or “undue influence,”; on the subject's free consent. In this essay we suggest an alternative way of conceptualizing research on healthy subjects, which sees the basic issue not as one of undue influence but as one of justice. Healthy subjects generally enroll in research protocols not for humanitarian reasons but for the money they will receive. Many of these protocols are conducted by profit‐driven corporations. Yet current guidelines and regulations prohibit subjects from negotiating for fair payment for the risks, discomforts and inconveniences they undergo, and IRBs are not staffed adequately to monitor the subject's safety. We propose to remedy the situation by regulating payment to healthy subjects as a labor relation.     

National Scientific Misconduct Policies in Argentina: Two Definitions of Research Misconduct

ABSTRACT

In “An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies”, Resnik et al. count Argentina in the list of countries without national research misconduct policies. In this paper, we clarify that Argentina has national policies of research misconduct and present the research misconduct definitions of two official science organisms: the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and the Ethics Committee of the Argentine Ministry of Science (MINCyT).     

Competence and consent to research: A critique of the recommendations of the national bioethics advisory commission*

Concern about the participation of incompetent subjects in psychiatric research has grown in the last several years. In response, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) recommended in its recent report that all investigations involving persons with mental disorders that may be associated with cognitive impairment that may pose greater than minimal risk to subjects utilize independent assessors to verify the capacities of subjects prior to entry into the study. This recommendation poses several problems for the conduct of research and the protection of research subjects. First, it fails to target that group of subjects most likely to be at risk for incapacity. Second, it focuses on too broad a range of research projects, many of which pose little risk to participants. The substantial costs of this approach are therefore not likely to be outweighed by concomitant benefits. In place of the NBAC recommendation, the author proposes a more flexible system of capacity assessment, designed to balance the costs with a greater likelihood of achieving meaningful protection for research subjects with mental disorders.     

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.     

The Inappropriate Use of Risk-Benefit Analysis in the Risk Assessment of Experimental Trauma-Focused Research

A large body of research has explored the impact of questioning participants about traumatic experiences. To determine the level of risk, these studies have relied, to various degrees, upon a risk-benefit calculus, whereby risks are weighed against the benefits that an individual can receive from participating. In the case of trauma-focused studies this approach is erroneous. The procedures involved in trauma-focused studies do not meet the criteria to be considered therapeutic, and the benefits associated with these procedures do not carry the moral weight to offset risk. Applying the risk-benefit calculus to non-therapeutic procedures inevitably leads to inaccurate risk assessments and ethically problematic claims, examples of which can be found throughout traumatic stress literature. This article outlines how the standard approach to risk assessment in trauma-focused studies is fallacious, and presents an established alternative model that researchers can use to accurately assess the risks of asking participants about their traumatic experiences.     

Implementation of a responsible conduct of research education program at Duke University School of Medicine

Academic medical centers rarely require all of their research faculty and staff to participate in educational programs on the responsible conduct of research (RCR). There is also little published evidence of RCR programs addressing high-profile, internal cases of misconduct as a way of promoting deliberation and learning. In the wake of major research misconduct, Duke University School of Medicine (DUSoM) expanded its RCR education activities to include all DUSoM faculty and staff engaged in research. The program included formal deliberation of the Translational Omics misconduct case, which occurred at Duke. Over 5,000 DUSoM faculty and staff participated in the first phase of this new program, with a 100% completion rate. The article reports on the program’s development, challenges and successes, and future directions. This experience at Duke University illustrates that, although challenging and resource intensive, engagement with RCR activities can be integrated into programs for all research faculty and staff. Formal, participatory deliberation of recent cases of internal misconduct can add a novel dimension of reflection and openness to RCR educational activities.     

Building a More Connected DSMB: Better Integrating Ethics Review and Safety Monitoring

Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) have become an increasingly common feature of clinical trial oversight, yet a paucity of legal or ethical frameworks govern these Boards’ composition or operation, or their relationship with other actors with monitoring responsibilities. This paper argues that prevailing structural gaps are impeding harmonized systems for monitoring the ongoing ethical acceptability of clinical trials. Particular tensions stem from DSMBs’ sweeping discretion in deciding whether and when to recommend that a trial should be terminated or amended based on safety and efficacy information. This discretion becomes especially challenging in light of DSMBs’ monopoly over emerging trial data, which prevents Institutional Review Boards, sponsors, and investigators from participating in certain pivotal and ethically charged decisions. To address these disconnects, I advocate for strengthened pre-trial and post-trial communication in addition to innovative strategies to support DSMB decision making through the life of a trial.     

哀敬两尽：从“君视大敛”看君臣、父子伦理的情感内涵

以君臣、父子为代表的政治伦理与亲属伦理及其内在的精神情感构成了中国社会结构、家国关系及政治秩序的深层根基。本文通过对《士丧礼》中“君视大敛”这一环节的描述分析，指出君臣之间以敬为主的情感内涵与父子之间以哀为主的情感内涵相互影响，交织在一起，而从根本上讲，这两种情感及其相互作用统一于儒家的仁义思想之中。通过对这两种伦理之情感内涵的讨论，文章进一步明晰了中国历史传统中家国关系的内在精神情感通路，即性情仁厚之人在家庭内部孝敬父母，才能在国家层面忠于君主，而国家层面的君臣关系也关照、影响着家庭内的父子关系。文章同时也为理解当下身处尊卑有等与亲疏有差两层关系中的中国人的内在情感状态、行动伦理以及在此结构中形成的社会人格提供了一种新的解释。     

The Issue of Consent in Research that Administers Drugs of Addiction to Addicted Persons

In addiction, impaired control over drug use raises questions about the capacity of addicted persons to consent to participate in research studies in which they are given their drug of addiction. We review the case for doing such research, and the arguments that addiction does, and does not, prevent addicted persons from consenting to such research. We argue for a more nuanced view that acknowledges that while in some situations addiction impairs decision-making capacity, it does not eliminate such capacity. We conclude with some suggestions for recruiting addicted subjects and designing experiments in ways to obtain free and informed consent.