Central ethical dilemmas in research involving children

We are obligated to protect individual child subjects of research, yet it is also necessary to investigate the safety and efficacy of medical treatments that benefit children as a class. The federal regulations on research with children have provided ethical guidance since 1983, but divergent interpretations persist. Since varying interpretations can lead to confusion and abuses, efforts are underway to clarify the criteria. Clarity is needed to protect individual child subjects from harm while enabling ethical research to proceed. The "pediatric rule" and the "pediatric exclusivity" incentive are important policy initiatives for promoting sound research on the medical treatment of children.     

Central Ethical Dilemmas in Research Involving Children

We are obligated to protect individual child subjects of research, yet it is also necessary to investigate the safety and efficacy of medical treatments that benefit children as a class. The federal regulations on research with children have provided ethical guidance since 1983, but divergent interpretations persist. Since varying interpretations can lead to confusion and abuses, efforts are underway to clarify the criteria. Clarity is needed to protect individual child subjects from harm while enabling ethical research to proceed. The "pediatric rule" and the "pediatric exclusivity" incentive are important policy initiatives for promoting sound research on the medical treatment of children.     

Conflicts of interest in vaccine safety research

Conflicts of interest (COIs) cloud vaccine safety research. Sponsors of research have competing interests that may impede the objective study of vaccine side effects. Vaccine manufacturers, health officials, and medical journals may have financial and bureaucratic reasons for not wanting to acknowledge the risks of vaccines. Conversely, some advocacy groups may have legislative and financial reasons to sponsor research that finds risks in vaccines. Using the vaccine-autism debate as an illustration, this article details the conflicts of interest each of these groups faces, outlines the current state of vaccine safety research, and suggests remedies to address COIs. Minimizing COIs in vaccine safety research could reduce research bias and restore greater trust in the vaccine program.     

The therapeutic misconception,beneficence, and respect

In order to provide benefits to society, human medical trials must place subjects at risk of harm. This activity is thought to be justified in part by the consent of the subjects involved. But, studies have shown that most such consents are based on a therapeutic misconception (TM); the false belief of subjects that their researchers will act as their personal physicians (seeking their benefit and protecting them from harm), rather than placing them at risk of harm for the good of others. Toleration by researchers of the TM in their subjects is a form of "informational manipulation" that renders consent procedures disrespectful to subject autonomy. Consent obtained from subjects who labor under a TM is neither voluntary nor informed; as long as they have not been disabused of the TM, the action they take in enrolling in a trial is not the one they intend nor is it autonomously chosen. Changes in consent procedures should be adopted to ensure that all subjects are aware inter alia that (a) the health interests of future patients (as well as the researchers' and their sponsors' financial interests) may be more important to researchers than the interest of a subject in his or her health, and (b) normal subjects neither understand nor believe this when told. Close attention to the response of prospective subjects to this information should allow for the exclusion of all but the truly altruistic. However, the result of conscientious implementation of such policies would likely be that human medical research could no longer be conducted on more than a minimal level.     

The therapeutic misconception,beneficence, and respect

In order to provide benefits to society, human medical trials must place subjects at risk of harm. This activity is thought to be justified in part by the consent of the subjects involved. But, studies have shown that most such consents are based on a therapeutic misconception (TM); the false belief of subjects that their researchers will act as their personal physicians (seeking their benefit and protecting them from harm), rather than placing them at risk of harm for the good of others. Toleration by researchers of the TM in their subjects is a form of “informational manipulation”; that renders consent procedures disrespectful to subject autonomy. Consent obtained from subjects who labor under a TM is neither voluntary nor informed; as long as they have not been disabused of the TM, the action they take in enrolling in a trial is not the one they intend nor is it autonomously chosen. Changes in consent procedures should be adopted to ensure that all subjects are aware inter alia that (a) the health interests of future patients (as well as the researchers’ and their sponsors’ financial interests) may be more important to researchers than the interest of a subject in his or her health, and (b) normal subjects neither understand nor believe this when told. Close attention to the response of prospective subjects to this information should allow for the exclusion of all but the truly altruistic. However, the result of conscientious implementation of such policies would likely be that human medical research could no longer be conducted on more than a minimal level.     

Testing drugs in pediatric populations: The FDA mandate

On November 27, 1998 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a new rule requiring that drugs and biological products be tested in pediatric populations. Since voluntary testing in pediatric populations had not resulted in a significant increase in pediatric labeling of drugs, stronger measures were needed to ensure that infants and children would receive the benefits of properly tested drugs and biologies. The mandate for pediatric testing raises a core ethical question: How should the need for validated treatments that benefit children as a group be weighed against the obligation to protect individual child subjects of research? The preamble to the new rule claims that adherence to Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines will provide adequate protection to individual subjects. Yet the special protections provided to children in these guidelines are not required by the new FDA rule, and have never been obligatory for research that is regulated by the FDA. While the new rule does not necessitate or encourage violation of these standards, the rule does not pay adequate attention to them nor clarify what role they should play in IRB review of protocols under FDA regulation.     

Obstacles to involving children and young people in foster care research

ABSTRACT Despite increasing recognition of the importance of including the perspectives of children and young people in care in alternative care research, in practice this is not always a straightforward matter. This paper describes the recruitment of disruptive young people in care under the jurisdiction of the South Australian statutory authority to three studies on placement instability. Non‐response rates of 72.5% and 82% are reported. A large number of subjects were excluded because agency social workers did not cooperate with the project, and more subjects were excluded for reasons which suggest high levels of distress in this population. The dilemma of providing a voice to distressed subjects when distressed subjects are excluded from research is discussed, and the appointment of an independent representative for children in care to review research proposals and to negotiate research access to children is proposed.     

When RIP means research in progress--the use of brain dead subjects in medical research

Recent research reported in a number of medical journals highlights some of the problems associated with performing experiments with human subjects who have been declared dead using the brain death criteria of death. These reports provide interesting illustrations of some of the real dilemmas involved in the regulation of human subjects experimentation. In particular, the traditional method of balancing risks and benefits in determining the ethical acceptability of research on human subjects is thrown into question. It is suggested that there should be a moratorium on the use of brain-dead subjects in research until some of the issues can be clarified and appropriate guidelines for the conduct of this research can be prepared.     

Informed Consent and Investigational New Drug Abuses in the U.S. Military

Objective: The focal point of this investigation was to research the ethical issues surrounding the military's requests for informed consent waivers when using investigational drugs, and the recent debate surrounding the anthrax vaccine as an investigational new drug (IND). Design: The military's management of the informed consent process was examined using documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Institutional Review Board (IRB) minutes, consent forms, legal pleadings, and protocols for specific investigational drugs. Results: In December 1990, prior to Operation Desert Storm, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) granted the Department of Defense (DoD) an unprecedented waiver to the federally mandated informed-consent requirement for the use of investigational drugs. However, the waiver approval was conditional, and the FDA insisted on several safeguards. Partially in response to the subsequent Gulf War Syndrome debate, the FDA recently evaluated the military's use of investigational drugs during the Gulf War. The FDA cited the military for significant deviations from the originally approved protocols. Most notably, the military was found to be abusing the IRB process by convening a second IRB when the first IRB concluded that waiving informed consent was unethical. In addition, there was a gross lack of documentation and no monitoring of adverse reactions. The DoD's plan to use the current anthrax vaccine on all 2.4 million troops against inhalation anthrax has kindled an additional investigational drug controversy. The safety and efficacy of the use of the anthrax vaccine as a prophylactic against inhalation anthrax have been questioned by both military and medical organizations. There have never been any published studies of human efficacy or long-term effects for the anthrax vaccine. In addition, the military is not using the vaccine for its intended purpose, and it is also not adhering to prescribed dosing schedules. There is clear evidence to support the claim that, in fact, the military's use of the anthrax vaccine should be considered experimental. Conclusions: I argue that in medical situations, the military is obligated to treat its troops as autonomous persons entitled to basic rights and protections. The DoD is currently using an approved drug, the anthrax vaccine, for an unapproved purpose and in an unapproved manner. In doing so, the DoD is not only violating the FDA's regulations against such practices, it is also violating an executive order which only allows the president to authorize the use of INDs on service members without their consent.     

A little too much of the buchenwald touch? Military radiation research at the university of Cincinnati, 1960–1972

From 1960 through 1972, Dr. Eugene Saenger oversaw the experimental administration of lethal and near‐lethal doses of radiation to hospital patients at the University of Cincinnati. These experiments were funded by the US Department of Defense, and were specifically designed to acquire military information on the effects of radiation in combat soldiers. Although Saenger's research was terminated after public exposure in 1971, a full and detailed account has not been available until now. The account provided by the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) in their Final Report of 1995 was incomplete. Our account is based on a reanalysis of all the material available to ACHRE, including highly critical peer reviews by U.C. faculty members. We also present, for the first time, several case histories taken from the medical records of Dr. Saenger's subjects.     

Grave fraudulence in medical device research: a narrative review of the PIN seeding study for the Pinnacle hip system

In 2001, DePuy, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J&J/DePuy), initiated a seeding study called the “Multi-center, Prospective, Clinical Evaluation of Pinnacle Acetabular Implants in Total Hip Arthroplasty” (PIN Study). J&J/DePuy designed this study to develop new business opportunities during the launch of their Pinnacle Hip System (PHS) and generate survivorship data for marketing. This article, the first review of a seeding trial for a medical device, examines internal company documents relating to the PIN Study; the analysis herein focuses on the integrity of J&J/DePuy’s research practices in conception, implementation, and analysis. J&J/DePuy violated the study protocol and manipulated data; consented participants in violation of standards protecting human subjects; and did not secure Institutional Review Board approval for all study sites. J&J/DePuy used PIN Study results as the “fundamental selling point” for the PHS. Medical device seeding trials are distinct from previously-documented pharmaceutical seeding trials because companies can profit directly from device sales and because these studies may be the first clinical evaluation of the device (as was the case for the PIN Study). Seeding trials are malleable marketing projects, not rigorous scientific studies. Regulatory bodies, physicians, and others should be vigilant for persuasive marketing accounts disguised as science.     

Resolving Beecher's Paradox: Getting beyond IRB reform

Protection of persons participating as research subjects is an essential element of ethical research conduct. There is growing concern that the existing system of institutional review boards (IRBs) and informed consent may not be adequate and is in need of reform. When science and medicine are “merged”; in clinical research, confusion of roles and conflicts of interests arise in relationships between patient‐subjects and physician‐investigators. IRBs have always had a primary role in protection of research participants. Their efforts to protect research subjects may make it more difficult for investigators to conduct research. This tension has lead to the development of an adversarial relationship between IRBs and investigators. Investigators and IRBs are also subject to external pressures that could impact efforts to protect research subjects. Efforts are underway to address these concerns. IRB reform, while needed, is not likely to be sufficient. Adoption of a new paradigm in which IRBs, investigators and research sponsors collectively accept protection of research subjects as their primary and shared responsibility may provide a more effective and efficient model that will be better able to deal with difficult ethical and social issues in clinical research.     

Korean and American Children's Concepts of Adult and Peer Authority

The primary purpose of this research was to examine Korean children's concepts of authority. Children's judgments about commands of persons with varying age, social position, and knowledge were assessed. 48 subjects from the first, third, and fifth grades were presented with portrayals of persons giving children commands regarding two types of events: fighting and a game rule dispute. Subjects evaluated the legitimacy of commands and chose between different persons giving opposing commands. With regard to a command to stop fighting, subjects accepted the legitimacy of adult and peer authorities, as well as an adult without a position of authority. Subjects rejected commands that failed to prevent harm even when given by an adult authority. With regard to a game rule dispute, subjects most heavily weighted knowledge in evaluating the authority commands. The findings show that Korean children do not have a unitary orientation to adult authority, and have implications for an understanding of individuals' conceptions in the context of a cultural ideology emphasizing reverence for authority. A second study, with a group of fifth graders from the United States, was conducted to determine how the game event task or cultural influences accounted for some differences between previous findings in the U.S. and the findings with the Korean children. The second study showed that whereas the U.S. children mainly respond in ways similar to the Korean children, the U.S. children gave more priority to pragmatic considerations; the Korean children gave more priority to the attribute of the authority's knowledge.     

Clinical trials integrity: a CRO perspective

When contract research organizations (CROs) were first formed, pharmaceutical companies outsourced to them only certain aspects of the conduct of their clinical trials. At first CROs were highly specialized entities, providing, for example, either biostatistical advice, clinical research associates who monitored investigational sites for regulatory compliance, or regulatory support. Gradually, full service CROs emerged, offering a full range of services for clinical trials, including the selection of investigators and investigational sites, assistance with patient recruitment, safety surveillance and reporting, site audits, and data management and biostatistics. This evolving relationship between CROs and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries has resulted in CROs assuming more and more of the regulatory and ethical risks and responsibilities inherent in the conduct of clinical trials. In this full service role, CROs, unlike sponsors, are not interested in the outcome of study, but like sponsors, are subject to heavy regulation by the federal government, must follow applicable state laws, must respect international guidelines, and are obliged to follow their own operating procedures. Moreover, they are judged by the industry on the basis of the scope and quality of services provided, including the degree of adherence to the research protocol, regulatory requirements, and timelines; the quality of the professional working relationships with investigators and institutions, both academic and community-based; and the validity of the data. Further, CROs are subject to comprehensive audits by sponsoring companies, FDA, and other regulatory authorities. For all these reasons, CROs are being tasked with strict vigilance of all stages of the clinical trial process to ensure that the laws, regulations, and industry standards designed for the protection of human subjects and data integrity are maintained.     

Developing and delivering new medical technologies: issues beyond access

The articles in this issue illuminate psychosocial issues raised by the development and delivery of new medical technologies. Five kinds of questions surface repeatedly: questions about a technology's purpose(s), the value judgments it presumes, the locus of its control, the external forces that drive it, and its long-term social risks. These questions take the discussion of new technologies beyond the challenge of improving access to their benefits. They also raise issues that will become increasingly important as the capabilities of medical technology expand. For example, they suggest research questions for three other emerging medical technologies: use of biosynthetic growth hormone to treat short stature in hormonally normal children, genetic tests on fetal cells from the circulating maternal blood, and development of clinically reliable biomarkers of the aging process. Part Three of this issue provides a theoretical basis for encouraging psychosocial perspectives in this area, by illustrating the central role that "robust," multifaceted analysis has come to play within the methods of bioethics.     

Teaching and learning communication with children and young people: developing the qualifying social work curriculum in a changing policy context

Twenty years after survey evidence showed that UK social work students could complete their training without having learnt about or worked with children, new research suggests little has changed. There is still no guarantee that any student on qualification will have been taught about or assessed in communication skills with children and young people. This is despite the claim that the pre‐registration award provides teaching and assessment in core generic skills as a foundation for the development of specialist practice roles in agencies. In fact, as this paper shows, a common understanding of what counts as effective communication with children has yet to be consolidated in social work practice and research. This has impeded the process of curriculum development. Divergent expectations about what counts as social work communication with children in a changing policy context may be exacerbating long‐standing uncertainties about how genericism and specialism should be linked in professional education and training. In exploring these issues, this paper seeks to clear the way for the renewed effort that is now required if this aspect of curriculum development is to be effective.     

Intentional exposure studies of environmental agents on human subjects: assessing benefits and risks

In this article, I assess the benefits and risks of studies that intentionally expose research subjects to environmental agents. I describe these types of studies, identify their benefits and risks, compare them to other research methods that can be used to investigate the relationship between environmental exposures and disease, and discuss some issues related to research design and risk minimization. I argue that the benefits of intentional environmental exposure studies outweigh the risks when 1) the knowledge gained is likely to improve our understanding of the relationship between environmental exposure and disease, 2) this knowledge cannot be obtained by other methods, 3) the experiments are well designed, 4) the subjects will receive some benefits, such as medical evaluations, 5) risks are minimized, and 6) the risks to human subjects are less than those encountered in a typical Phase I drug study. Only in rare circumstances (i.e., when an intentional environmental exposure study is needed to implement an important environmental or public health intervention or regulation) may such studies expose research subjects to risks as high as those encountered in a typical Phase I drug trail.     

Intentional Exposure Studies of Environmental Agents on Human Subjects: Assessing Benefits and Risks∗

In this article, I assess the benefits and risks of studies that intentionally expose research subjects to environmental agents. I describe these types of studies, identify their benefits and risks, compare them to other research methods that can be used to investigate the relationship between environmental exposures and disease, and discuss some issues related to research design and risk minimization. I argue that the benefits of intentional environmental exposure studies outweigh the risks when 1) the knowledge gained is likely to improve our understanding of the relationship between environmental exposure and disease, 2) this knowledge cannot be obtained by other methods, 3) the experiments are well designed, 4) the subjects will receive some benefits, such as medical evaluations, 5) risks are minimized, and 6) the risks to human subjects are less than those encountered in a typical Phase I drug study. Only in rare circumstances (i.e., when an intentional environmental exposure study is needed to implement an important environmental or public health intervention or regulation) may such studies expose research subjects to risks as high as those encountered in a typical Phase I drug trail.     

改革开放30年以来中国医务社会工作的历史回顾、现状与前瞻

(接2012年第5期)五、中国社会福利时代与医务社会工作发展前景2010年是中国社会政策、社会立法、社会管理、社会服务、社会建设与社会福利元年,标志中国总体性社会福利制度,包括国家福利、儿童福利、家庭福利、妇女福利、残障福利、老年人福利、军人福利、社区福利和社会化福利时代来临,以改善民生为重点的社会建设和中国特色社会福利制     

Ethics in population-based genetic research

Population-based genetic research, including genetic epidemiology, shows tremendous potential to elucidate the role of genes as causal factors in complex and common human diseases. Like all research with human subjects, full realization of these benefits requires careful attention to its ethical conduct, establishing an appropriate balance between individual protections and the advancement of scientific and medical knowledge. This article reviews the growing literature on genetics research and ethics to describe some of the fundamental ethical issues in population-based genetics research, including research design, recruitment and informed consent, and dealing with research results. Its focus is on areas where consensus is forming and where future work is needed.