Ethics & human research最新文献

Interest in maternal mental health research is growing around the world. Maternal mental health research studies in Malawi have, for instance, sought to determine and establish the incidence and prevalence of depression and anxiety in pregnant people and the factors that contribute to experiences of these states. This article reports stakeholder perspectives on potential community concerns with biopsychosocial mental health research (which might include collecting blood samples) in Malawi. These perspectives were generated through a town hall event that featured five focus group discussions with various participants. In this article, we reflect on key themes from these discussions, demonstrating the endurance of long-standing concerns and practices around autonomy, consent, and the drawing of blood. We conclude by arguing that, while maternal mental health research conducted in Malawi could benefit Malawian women and children, consultation with community stakeholders is necessary to inform whether and how such research should be conducted.

Advance research directives (ARDs) enable people to document preferences for future research participation in the event of incapacity. This article reports on interviews with 11 dementia researchers in Australia that focused on the content of a prototype ARD and processes for making and using ARDs. Participants agreed that an ARD template should provide information to explain research and the rationale for making a directive, allow the person to nominate trusted individuals to be involved in future decisions, and record the person's general willingness or unwillingness to be involved in research. Providing a list of various research activities elicits preferences and risk tolerances in more detail. Priority groups for ARD implementation include people with a diagnosis involving progressive cognitive impairment and people interested in research. Researchers and health and legal professionals have a role in promoting ARDs. Our findings suggest that, as a voluntary strategy, ARDs could promote appropriate inclusion in research.

The revised Common Rule requires using a single institutional review board (sIRB) for U.S.-based, multisite, nonexempt, federally conducted or supported research with human participants. The 21st Century Cures Act directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to harmonize differences between HHS and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations governing research with humans. Anticipating that the FDA may update its 2006 centralized IRB guidance, we conducted interviews with 34 stakeholders engaged in FDA-regulated clinical research to identify benefits and challenges of using sIRBs and to gather recommendations for revising the FDA's guidance. The main benefits were consistency and standardization, speed and efficiency, and streamlining and simplification. The main challenges were uncertainty at local institutions, including addressing local context; decreased timeliness of the research review process; variable processes; and insufficient communication. Several recommendations for FDA guidance focused on the local context and communication plans. Findings suggest that the sIRB review process may be gaining efficiency although challenges remain.

Clinical studies conducted by the National Institutes of Health's Intramural Research Program (NIH-IRP) provide eligible individuals with access to innovative research treatments that may not otherwise be available. The NIH-IRP's mission is to include all Americans, including American Indians and Alaska Natives, in its clinical research. This study is the first to provide data about inclusion of American Indians/Alaska Natives in NIH-IRP clinical studies. We analyzed data from the more than 1,800 NIH-IRP protocols active in 2014 and 2017. We found that the absolute number of American Indian/Alaska Native enrollees increased between 2014 and 2017 but remained at 1% of all participants, a disproportionately low level. The number of clinical studies that enrolled American Indian/Alaska Native individuals similarly did not change. NIH efforts to expand participation of American Indians/Alaska Natives in clinical studies has often focused on research within their communities or on health needs specific to these groups. Those efforts should expand to include processes and protections for the proportionate and ethical inclusion of American Indians and Alaska Natives who individually enroll in studies that are not specific to American Indians, Alaska Natives, or their tribal nations.

In the midst of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, researchers across the globe are still working to develop effective vaccines. To expedite this process even further, human challenge trials have been proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an alternative to conventional approaches. In such trials, healthy volunteers are deliberately infected with the pathogen of interest, enabling scientists to study the infection process and facilitate further research on treatments or prophylactics, including vaccines. While human challenge trials would offer a collective benefit to society, minimizing the risks is always difficult. Ethical controversy thus inevitably surrounds these trials. Typically, healthy young adults are recruited to serve as the first candidate subjects for human challenge trials because they are generally considered to represent a low-risk population. Here, we present three reasons for doubt about this healthy-young-adults-first criterion and give justification for also recruiting healthy older adults (or not-young adults), meaning those over 30 years of age, to participate in such trials for SARS-CoV-2.

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, ethicists, researchers, and journalists have recommended studies that deliberately infect healthy volunteers with the coronavirus as a scientific means of expediting vaccine development. In this essay, we trace the history of infection challenge experiments and reflect on the Nuremberg Code of 1947, issued in response to brutal human experiments conducted by Nazi investigators in concentration camps. We argue that the Code continues to offer valuable guidance for assessing the ethics of this controversial form of research, with respect particularly to the acceptable limits to research risks and the social value of research necessary to justify exposing human participants to these risks.