Ethics & human research最新文献

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

Impactful translational research requires new approaches to computational analysis and bioethics, both of which have been advanced by adoption of community-engagement strategies. Community knowledge and experience will hone data collection, research, and insights and accelerate the impact of derived translational applications to improve individual health, medical decision-making, and public health policy. In the context of translational research with big health data, meaningful community-researcher engagement will require developing and deploying coengagement tools across the research life cycle and developing approaches for novel coproduction.

To be ethical, clinical trials must exhibit a favorable risk-benefit balance at the time of their initiation. However, in some cases, the expected value of a study decreases while the study is ongoing, due to developments outside of the study itself, such as findings from other studies or an otherwise shifting evidence base. While such situations are acknowledged in the research community, they have not received sufficient attention, given the high costs of uninformative studies, both in material and human capital. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic has exposed serious shortcomings with current approaches to monitoring studies for continued relevance and value. In this article, with reference to a case study from the Covid-19 pandemic, we identify and describe the importance and challenge of ensuring that clinical trials continue to exhibit scientific relevance and value once initiated. We explore the ethical dynamics of these situations and identify unresolved issues. While more empirical work is needed to ensure that proposed solutions to the issues are evidence based, we offer some provisional considerations that amount to a framework for approaching these challenging situations.

Over recent decades, adaptive trial designs have been used more and more often for clinical trials, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This rise in the use of adaptive RCTs has been accompanied by debates about whether such trials offer ethical and methodological advantages over traditional, fixed RCTs. This study examined how experts on clinical trial methods and ethics believe that adaptive RCTs, compared to fixed ones, affect the ethical character of clinical research. We conducted in-depth interviews with 17 researchers from bioethics, epidemiology, biostatistics, and/or medical backgrounds. While about half believed that adaptive trials are more complex and may thus threaten autonomy, these respondents also expressed that this challenge is not insurmountable. Most respondents expressed that efficiency and potential for participant benefit were the main justifications for adaptive trials. There was tension about whether adaptive randomization in response to increasing information disrupts clinical equipoise, with some respondents insisting that uncertainty still exists and therefore clinical equipoise is not disrupted. These findings suggest that further discussion is needed to increase the awareness and utility of these study designs.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) requires use of a single institutional review board (sIRB) for multisite, nonexempt, NIH-funded research with human participants. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) conducted in-depth interviews with 34 stakeholders at two universities and in research administration leadership positions at multiple institutions about their experiences implementing the sIRB model, focusing on the NIH policy's goals soon after the policy was enacted. While some stakeholders suggested that using an sIRB has streamlined and reduced inefficiencies associated with the local IRB model, more stakeholders indicated that the sIRB model has not simplified the ethics review process and instead created new inefficiencies due to unclear roles and responsibilities for staff and institutions; a lack of systems and processes for implementing the sIRB model, including communication systems; and increased workloads. CTTI used these findings to propose a new framework for evaluating the NIH sIRB policy.

Translational science is justified as advancing the public's interests but has no mechanism for determining these interests. Standard social science approaches would produce either unrepresentative descriptions or a cacophony of data not easily condensed into a concrete conclusion about moving forward with a translational-science project. Here, I propose that the simplifying and structuring ethics employed by institutional review boards (IRBs) be used to create social science reports of the four to six most prominent values or principles of the public regarding a biotechnology. A board of bioethicists would weigh and balance these values to conclude whether the public supports a given translational-science innovation.

Analytic treatment interruption (ATI) is scientifically necessary in HIV-remission (“cure”) studies to test the effects of new interventions. However, stopping antiretroviral treatment poses risks to research participants and their sexual partners. Ethical debate about whether and how to conduct such studies has largely centered on designing risk-mitigation strategies and identifying the responsibilities of research stakeholders. In this paper, we argue that because the possibility of HIV transmission from research participants to partners during ATI cannot practicably be eliminated—that is, it is ineliminable—the successful conduct of such trials ultimately depends on relationships of trust and trustworthiness. We describe our experiences with conducting and studying HIV-remission trials with ATI in Thailand to examine the strengths, complexities, and limitations of the risk-mitigation and responsibility approaches and to explore ways in which the building of trust—and trustworthiness—may help enhance the scientific, practical, and ethical dimensions of these trials.