Addressing conflicts of interest of ethical reviewers of health planning, management, policy and systems research proposals.

Steering health systems towards universal health coverage requires research on themes that are of particular interest to health planning, management, policy and systems researchers. Some issues, such as strikes regarded as illegal and health sector corruption, because of their social and political sensitivity have, for too long, remained outside adequate research inquiry. Their emergence in the research agenda raises some challenges for Human Research Ethics Committees, particularly related to their conflicts of interests as reviewers, that need clarification.

Mapping research ethics committees in Africa: Evidence of the growth of ethics review of health research in Africa.

Health research initiatives worldwide are growing in scope and complexity, particularly as they move into the developing world. Expanding health research activity in low- and middle-income countries has resulted in a commensurate rise in the need for sound ethical review structures and functions in the form of Research Ethics Committees (RECs). The urgent need for continued capacity development in Africa has necessitated research initiatives to identify existing capacity. This discussion paper describes the mapping of RECs in Africa through MARC (Mapping African Research Ethics Capacity) project, second phase (2012 to date) and discusses the findings. MARC provides a platform and tool on COHRED's Health Research HRWeb, which can be used by RECs and key stakeholders in health research in Africa to identify capacity, constraints and development needs.

Global Forum 2015 dialogue on "From evidence to policy - thinking outside the box": perspectives to improve evidence uptake and good practices in the African Region.

BACKGROUND: The Global Forum 2015 panel session dialogue entitled "From evidence to policy - thinking outside the box" was held on 26 August 2015 in the Philippines to debate why evidence was not fully translated into policy and practice and what could be done to increase its uptake. This paper reports the reasons and possible actions for increasing the uptake of evidence, and highlights the actions partners could take to increase the use of evidence in the African Region. DISCUSSION: The Global Forum 2015 debate attributed African Region's low uptake of evidence to the big gap in incentives and interests between research for health researchers and public health policy-makers; limited appreciation on the side of researchers that public health decisions are based on multiple and complex considerations; perception among users that research evidence is not relevant to local contexts; absence of knowledge translation platforms; sub-optimal collaboration and engagement between industry and research institutions; lack of involvement of civil society organizations; lack of engagement of communities in the research process; failure to engage the media; limited awareness and debate in national and local parliaments on the importance of investing in research and innovation; and dearth of research and innovation parks in the African Region. CONCLUSION: The actions needed in the Region to increase the uptake of evidence in policy and practice include strengthening NHRS governance; bridging the motivation gap between researchers and health policy-makers; restoring trust between researchers and decision-makers; ensuring close and continuous intellectual intercourse among researchers, ministry of health policy-makers and technocrats during the life course of research projects or programmes; proactive collaboration between academia and industry; regular briefings of civil society, media, relevant parliamentary committees and development partners; development of vibrant knowledge translation platforms; development of action plans for implementing research recommendations, preferably in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals; and encouragement of competition on NHRS strengthening and research output and uptake among the countries using a barometer or scorecard to review their performance at various regional ministerial forums and taking into account the lessons learned from the MDG period.

Mapping African ethical review committee activity onto capacity needs: the MARC initiative and HRWeb's interactive database of RECs in Africa.

Health research initiatives worldwide are growing in scope and complexity, particularly as they move into the developing world. Expanding health research activity in low- and middle-income countries has resulted in a commensurate rise in the need for sound ethical review structures and functions in the form of Research Ethics Committees (RECs). Yet these seem to be lagging behind as a result of the enormous challenges facing these countries, including poor resource availability and lack of capacity. There is thus an urgent need for ongoing capacity and resource development in these regions in general, and in Africa in particular. Similarly, there is a need for research and initiatives that can identify existing capacity and funding and indicate the areas where this needs to be developed. This discussion paper argues that the Mapping African Research Ethics Capacity (MARC) project is a timely initiative aimed at identifying existing capacity. MARC provides a platform and tool on the Council on Health Research for Development's (COHRED) Health Research website (HRWeb), which can be used by RECs and key stakeholders in health research in Africa to identify capacity, constraints and development needs. MARC intends to provide the first comprehensive interactive database of RECs in Africa, which will allow for the identification of key relationships and analyses of capacity. The potential of MARC lies in the mapping of current ethical review activity onto capacity needs. This paper serves as a starting point by providing a descriptive illustration of the current state of RECs in Africa.

Fix the system.

Letter by IJsselmuiden on 'From the Editor' article by Farham (Farham B. Fix the system. S Afr Med J 2022;112(5):299. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2022.v112i5.16571); and response by Farham.

Rethinking and strengthening the Global Health Diplomacy through triangulated nexus between policy makers, scientists and the community in light of COVID-19 global crisis.

The COVID-19 pandemic is considerably the biggest global health challenge of this modern era. Spreading across all regions of the world, this corona virus disease has disrupted even some of the most advanced economies and healthcare systems. With an increasing global death toll and no near end in sight, questions on the efficacy of global response mechanisms, including the role and relevancy of global health institutions, have emerged. Using a reflexive content analytic approach, this study sheds light on some of these questions, underscoring the disconnect between science, policymaking, and society. Global health funding approaches; politicization of the pandemic, including political blame gaming; mistrust of government and other institutions; and a lack of robust accountability measures are some of the pandemic response obstacles. However, COVID-19 has also presented an opportunity for a collaboration that may potentially solidify global solidarity. A pandemic response built on strategic global health diplomacy, vaccine diplomacy, and science diplomacy can spur both political and economic benefits, advancing development, health security, and justice. The virus thrives and flourishes in face of political divisions and lack of cooperation. While the current global crisis has exacerbated the existing social injustices in societies, national unity and global solidarity is essential to winning the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Research Fairness Initiative: Filling a critical gap in global research ethics.

2017 marked the 70 anniversary of the Nuremberg Code. The ethics of research with human beings has been shaped by the simplicity of its core logic, i.e., that the voluntary consent of research participants is sacrosanct and, when given, creates profound obligations of care and respect on the part of researchers. But there are other aspects of the global research enterprise that warrant more deliberate ethical scrutiny. One of these is the fairness of research collaborations and partnerships and the many practical challenges that make fair partnerships difficult to achieve. Corruption in governments and institutions, unequal access to research funding among researchers and research institutions, and enormous disparities in institutional capacity to support research partnerships are just some of the factors that present obstacles to fair partnerships between high income country (HIC) and low and middle income country (LMIC) partners, and within LMICs and HICs alike. Serious attention to these structural disparities, and the ways they shape the ethical character of the research enterprise, is long overdue. Achieving fairness in research partnerships is, in essence, a complex policy and management challenge. Against this backdrop, COHRED has developed and pilot-tested the Research Fairness Initiative (RFI) with several leading research institutions around the world. The RFI was designed as a tool for promoting self-reflection on, and public reporting of, institutional practices and policies related to research partnerships to create a continuous improvement process for research collaborations. Here, we report promising preliminary results of the RFI's impact, including TDR-WHO's recent publication of its first RFI report . The RFI provides a pragmatic strategy to explicitly address fairness in research partnerships as a fundamental requirement of the ethics of research.

Developing the Philippines as a Global Hub for Disaster Risk Reduction - A Health Research Initiative as Presented at the 10th Philippine National Health Research System Week Celebration.

The recent Philippine National Health Research System (PNHRS) Week Celebration highlighted the growing commitment to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in the Philippines. The event was lead by the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development of the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Health, and saw the participation of national and international experts in DRR, and numerous research consortia from all over the Philippines. With a central focus on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the DRR related events recognised the significant disaster risks faced in the Philippines. They also illustrated the Philippine strengths and experience in DRR. Key innovations in science and technology showcased at the conference include the web-base hazard mapping applications 'Project NOAH' and 'FaultFinder'. Other notable innovations include 'Surveillance in Post Extreme Emergencies and Disasters' (SPEED) which monitors potential outbreaks through a syndromic reporting system. Three areas noted for further development in DRR science and technology included: integrated national hazard assessment, strengthened collaboration, and improved documentation. Finally, the event saw the proposal to develop the Philippines into a global hub for DRR. The combination of the risk profile of the Philippines, established national structures and experience in DRR, as well as scientific and technological innovation in this field are potential factors that could position the Philippines as a future global leader in DRR. The purpose of this article is to formally document the key messages of the DRR-related events of the PNHRS Week Celebration.