Global Bioethics最新文献

The provision of gifts and payments for healthy volunteer subjects remains an important topic in global health research ethics. This paper provides empirical insights into theoretical debates by documenting participants' perspectives on an Ebola vaccine trial in West Africa. This trial provided hundreds of Africans with regular payments, food packages and certificates for participation. The researchers conducting the trials considered these socioeconomic provisions to be gifts in accordance with contemporary ethical standards and principles. Trial participants viewed them differently, however, approaching trial participation as a means for training and employment in what was from their perspective a new job market: the post-Ebola expansion of research and health care systems. This paper analyses participation in contemporary research by viewing the context-specific histories of trial participants through the lens of prior interventions, specifically participatory reintegration programmes conducted in Anglophone West Africa to overcome civil war crises. In particular, we argue that participation in the Ebola vaccine trial was inadvertently shaped by the design and outcomes of past reintegration programmes. Our results highlight the need to investigate existing socioeconomic landscapes which surround and indeed permeate clinical research as a prerequisite for understanding the participatory motives of vulnerable participants in West Africa and elsewhere.

The amount of biomedical research being conducted around the world has greatly expanded over the past 15 years, with particularly large growth occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This increased focus on understanding and responding to disease burdens around the world has brought forth a desire to help LMIC institutions enhance their own capacity to conduct scientifically and ethically sound research. In support of these goals the Johns Hopkins-Fogarty African Bioethics Training Program (FABTP) has, for the past six years, partnered with three research institutions in Africa (University of Botswana, Makerere University in Uganda, and the University of Zambia) to support research ethics capacity. Each partnership began with a baseline evaluation of institutional research ethics environments in order to properly tailor capacity strengthening activities and help direct limited institutional resources. Through the course of these partnerships we have learned several lessons regarding the evaluation process and the framework used to complete the assessments (the Octagon Model). We believe that these lessons are generalizable and will be useful for groups conducting such assessments in the future.

There are disagreements among ethicists on what comprises an "appropriate" good to offer research participants. Debates often focus on the type, quantity, timing, and ethical appropriateness of such offers, particularly in settings where participants may be socio-economically vulnerable, such as in parts of Zambia. This was a Cross-sectional online survey of researchers and Research Ethics Committees (RECs) designed to understand practices, attitudes and policies associated with provision of goods to research participants. Of 122 responding researchers, 69 met eligibility criteria. Responses were also received from five of the six Zambian RECs involved in reviewing research proposals. Forty-nine researchers (71.0%) confirmed previous experience offering goods to participants. Of these, 21 (42.9%) offered participants money only, 18 (36.7%) offered non-monetary goods, while the rest offered both monetary and non-monetary goods. Generally, goods were offered and approved by RECs to compensate for time, lost wages and transportation. One REC and 34.8% of researchers reported being subject to an institutional policy on offering goods to participants. While reimbursement is the main reason for offering goods to participants in Zambia, caution is required when deciding on the type and quantity of goods to offer given the potential for community mistrust and manipulation.

Post-abortion care (PAC) research is increasingly being conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to help reduce the high burden of unsafe abortion. This study aims to help address the evidence gap about ethical challenges that researchers in LMICs face when carrying out PAC research with adolescents. Employing an explorative qualitative approach, the study identified several ethics challenges encountered by PAC researchers in Zambia, including those associated with seeking ethics and regulatory approvals at institutional and national levels. Persistent stigma around abortion and community perceptions that PAC studies encourage adolescents to seek abortion affected adolescents' right to exercise their autonomy and to make decisions as well as exposed adolescents to social stigmatization risks. Challenges with recruitment was reported to result in abandoning of studies, thereby undermining development of PAC services that are more responsive to adolescent needs. Training needs identified included knowledge of best practices for conducting and disseminating PAC research. Strategies for addressing the ethical challenges included trust building and using less value-laden terminology when seeking permission and consent. It is essential to the future of PAC research in Zambia and globally that these important challenges be addressed through the development of comprehensive ethics guidance.

The quality of medicines is generally adequately assured by manufacturers and regulatory authorities for well-resourced settings, while the implementation of existing quality standards is challenged in many low- and middle-income countries. This situation of multiple pharmaceutical standards raises the question whether it could ever be ethically justified to compromise on the quality assurance of medicines depending on what individuals, communities, or societies can afford. In this paper, we contend that ethically, any unjustified exceptions to medicines' quality assurance represents a violation of the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. Exceptions are only acceptable in exceptional and temporary circumstances, if based on a meaningful quality risk assessment, guided by a rigorous ethical framework built on the principles of independence, technical competence, transparency, and accountability. We also discuss how such exceptional and temporary circumstances should be defined/justified. Finally, we propose that empirical bioethics should acknowledge the existence of these dilemmas in public health, and help to build a normative approach to dealing with them. Ideally, an international group of experts in quality assurance/regulatory affairs and health ethicists should be set up to take up this topic and formulate a Guide to Ethical Principles of Quality Assurance of Medical Products.

Building trust between researchers and communities involved in research is one goal of community engagement. This paper examines the implications of community engagement for trust within communities, including trust among community volunteers who assist with research and between these volunteers and other community members. We describe the experiences of two groups of community volunteers recruited as part of an HIV and TB intervention trial in Malawi: cluster representatives, recruited both to act as key informants for TB suspects and mortality reporting and to identify and report community concerns, and community counsellors, recruited to provide semi-supervised HIV self-testing. We examine tensions experienced due to playing multiple roles, and the implications of volunteer responsibilities for short- and long-term community relationships. Data was collected through a workshop, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with volunteers and community members. While the volunteer system initially enhanced trust among volunteers and with the community, relationships deteriorated when cluster representatives assumed an additional supervisory role part-way through the trial. Combined with challenging recruitment targets and unequal power relations between volunteers, this new role damaged trust, with implications for volunteer well-being and social relationships. These experiences suggest researchers should consider potential social implications when designing community engagement systems.

The recent increase in research and commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa has resulted in considerable and understandable interest from farmers, scholars, and practitioners. However, messy situations are often hard to critically engage in from afar, and the recent article published by Braimah et al. [(2017). Debated agronomy: Public discourse and the future of biotechnology policy in Ghana. Global Bioethics. doi:10.1080/11287462.2016.1261604] presents certain claims that further obfuscate - rather than clarify - an already complex landscape. In this commentary I first seek to clarify particular details of the Ghanaian "GMO" (as GM crops are colloquially called in Ghana) story with particular focus on certain actors and their stances. Next, I highlight some methodological shortcomings of Debated Agronomy and correct certain dubious quotations and claims. Finally, I suggest a more ethnographically and discourse-focused methodology to gain much needed insight into how Ghanaians are actively molding, contesting, and questioning GM discourse, funding, and use.

There has considerable interest in bringing low/middle-income countries (LMIC) scientists into discussions on Open Data - both as contributors and users. The establishment of in situ data sharing practices within LMIC research institutions is vital for the development of an Open Data landscape in the Global South. Nonetheless, many LMICs have significant challenges - resource provision, research support and extra-laboratory infrastructures. These low-resourced environments shape data sharing activities, but are rarely examined within Open Data discourse. In particular, little attention is given to how these research environments shape scientists' perceptions of data sharing (dis)incentives. This paper expands on these issues of incentivizing data sharing, using data from a quantitative survey disseminated to life scientists in 13 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. This interrogated not only perceptions of data sharing amongst LMIC scientists, but also how these are connected to the research environments and daily challenges experienced by them. The paper offers a series of analysis around commonly cited (dis)incentives such as data sharing as a means of improving research visibility; sharing and funding; and online connectivity. It identifies key areas that the Open Data community need to consider if true openness in research is to be established in the Global South.

There is a growing body of literature describing conceptual frameworks for working with participatory visual methods (PVM). Through a global health lens, this paper examines some key themes within these frameworks. We reflect on our experiences of working with with an array of PVM to engage community members in Vietnam, Kenya, the Philippines and South Africa in biomedical research and public health. The participants that we have engaged in these processes live in under-resourced areas with high prevalence of communicable and non-communicable diseases. Our paper describes some of the challenges that we have encountered while using PVM to foster knowledge exchange, build relationships and facilitate change among individuals and families, community members, health workers, biomedical scientists and researchers. We consider multiple ethical situations that have arisen through our work and discuss the ways in which we have navigated and negotiated them. We offer our reflections and learning from facilitating these processes and in doing so we add novel contributions to ethical framework concepts.