Bridge-building between communities: Imagining the future of biomedical autism research.

A paradigm shift in research culture is required to ease perceived tensions between autistic people and the biomedical research community. As a group of autistic and non-autistic scientists and stakeholders, we contend that through participatory research, we can reject a deficit-based conceptualization of autism while building a shared vision for a neurodiversity-affirmative biomedical research paradigm.

Ancestry matters: Building inclusivity into preclinical study design.

Human cell lines (CLs) are key assets for biomedicine but lack ancestral diversity. Here, we explore why genetic diversity among cell-based models is essential for making preclinical research more equitable and widely translatable. We lay out practical actions that can be taken to improve inclusivity in study design.

Voices on Diversity: Creating a Sense of Belonging.

As part of our commitment to amplifying the voices of underrepresented scientists, we are publishing the insights and experiences of a panel of underrepresented scientists. Here they tell us about behaviors that can lead underrepresented scientists to feel that they do not belong and what the scientific community can do to provide better support. These are the personal opinions of the authors and may not reflect the views of their institutions.

Voices on diversity: support systems that work.

As part of our commitment to amplifying the voices of underrepresented scientists, we are publishing the insights and experiences of a panel of underrepresented scientists. In this segment, we asked about support systems-the types of support that are most helpful (and less helpful), how to find a supportive network, and how institutions can better support underrepresented scientists. These are the personal opinions of the authors and may not reflect the views of their institutions.

Are there any good experiments that should not be done?

Is there any research that should not be done? Could you think of an experiment and then decide not to do it? These questions get to the heart of the power of modern genetics to mix up and alter genes.

Scientists and scientific journals should adhere to ethical standards for the use and reporting of data from Indigenous people.

Internationally, governments and scientists are bound by legal and treaty rights when working with Indigenous nations. These rights include the right of Indigenous people to control the conduct of science with Indigenous nations. Unfortunately, in some cases, individual scientists and scientific teams working with biological and genetic data collected from Indigenous people have not respected these international rights. Here, we argue that the scientific community should understand and acknowledge the historical harms experienced by Indigenous people under the veil of scientific progress (truth) and implement existing standards for ethical conduct of research and sovereign control of data collected within Indigenous communities (reconciliation). Specifically, we outline the rationale for why scientists, scientific journals and research integrity and institutional review boards/ethics committees should adopt, and be held accountable for upholding, current international standards of Indigenous data sovereignty and ethical use of Indigenous biological samples.

Research opportunities and ethical considerations for heart and lung xenotransplantation research: A report from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop.

Xenotransplantation offers the potential to meet the critical need for heart and lung transplantation presently constrained by the current human donor organ supply. Much was learned over the past decades regarding gene editing to prevent the immune activation and inflammation that cause early organ injury, and strategies for maintenance of immunosuppression to promote longer-term xenograft survival. However, many scientific questions remain regarding further requirements for genetic modification of donor organs, appropriate contexts for xenotransplantation research (including nonhuman primates, recently deceased humans, and living human recipients), and risk of xenozoonotic disease transmission. Related ethical questions include the appropriate selection of clinical trial participants, challenges with obtaining informed consent, animal rights and welfare considerations, and cost. Research involving recently deceased humans has also emerged as a potentially novel way to understand how xeno-organs will impact the human body. Clinical xenotransplantation and research involving decedents also raise ethical questions and will require consensus regarding regulatory oversight and protocol review. These considerations and the related opportunities for xenotransplantation research were discussed in a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and are summarized in this meeting report.

Thinking "ethical" when designing an international, cross-disciplinary biomedical research consortium.

This commentary outlines challenges with identifying and implementing ethical, legal and societal considerations when initiating large-scale scientific programs and suggests best practices to ensure responsible research.

Perception of Polish patients with cancer of the ethical and legal issues related to biobank research.

BACKGROUND: Although biobanks have become fundamental to many research centers and contribute to medical development, they generate many ethical and legal issues that may discourage patients from donating. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To understand patients' perception of ethical and legal issues related to biobanks we conducted a survey among 548 Polish patients with cancer. RESULTS: While 93.1% of patients with cancer declared themselves willing to donate biospecimens left over after a medical procedure to a biobank, most opted for one-time consent or study-specific consent, blanket consent being less frequently preferred. Many patients believed that future use of previously collected tissues require second contact. Most patients preferred pseudonymization over anonymization of the data, and supported donors' right to withdraw informed consent at any given moment. Finally, while personal health information was the most expected form of compensation for donation, most patients suggested that all parties, including the biobank concerned, the sponsors of the research, and the donors, should own the rights to cancer tissues donated and profit from the biobank research. Patients' opinions on the ethical and legal issues related to biobank research were associated with age, sex, religiosity, education level, and place of residence. CONCLUSIONS: Since biobanks generate ethical and legal issues related to informed consent, data protection and storage, as well as the sharing of biosamples, tissue ownership, and profit sharing, that may discourage patients from donation, when asking a patient for a donation, healthcare professionals should communicate in a donor-centered manner and address patients' ethical and moral concerns related to donation and offer resources to help manage these concerns.

Scarcity of medical ethics research in allergy and immunology: A review and call to action.

Medical ethics is relevant to the clinical practice of allergy and immunology regardless of the type of patient, disease state, or practice setting. When engaging in clinical care, performing research, or enacting policies on the accessibility and distribution of healthcare resources, physicians regularly make and justify decisions using the fundamental principles of medical ethics. Thus, knowledge of these principles is paramount for allergists/immunologists. To date, there has been a shortage of medical ethics research in allergy and immunology. This review describes this scarcity, highlights publication trends over time, and advocates for additional support for research and training in medical ethics with a focus on topics germane to the practice of allergy and immunology.

Advancing primatology through ethical and scientific perspectives on rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) cloning.

A critical turning point was reached in research with the recent success in cloning rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), a major advancement in primatology. This breakthrough marks the beginning of a new age in biomedical research, ushered by improved somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques and creative trophoblast replacement strategies. The successful cloning of rhesus monkeys presents the possibility of producing genetically homogeneous models that are highly advantageous for studying complex biological processes, testing drugs, and researching diseases. However, this achievement raises important ethical questions, particularly regarding animal welfare and the broader ramifications of primate cloning. Approaching the future of primate research with balance is critical, as the scientific world stands on the brink of these revolutionary breakthroughs. This paper aims to summarise the consequences, ethical challenges and possible paths forward in primatology arising from rhesus monkey cloning.

Critical importance of correctly defining and reporting secondary endpoints when assessing the ethics of research biopsies.

This article reviews the implementation challenges to the American Society of Clinical Oncology's ethical framework for including research biopsies in oncology clinical trials. The primary challenges to implementation relate to the definitions of secondary endpoints, the scientific and regulatory framework, and the incentive structure that encourages inclusion of biopsies. Principles of research stewardship require that the clinical trials community correctly articulate the scientific goals of any research biopsies, especially those that are required for the patient to enroll on a trial and receive an investigational agent. Furthermore, it is important to sufficiently justify the characterization of secondary (as distinguished from exploratory) endpoints, protect the interest of research participants, and report accurate and complete information to ClinicalTrials.gov and the published literature.

Determining the state of guidance on pediatric biobanking for researchers, HRECS, and families: Regulatory mapping of international guidance.

Biobanking-the storage of human biological samples, including tissue, blood, urine, and genetic data-raises many ethical, legal, and social issues, including confidentiality and privacy. Pediatric biobanking is more complicated, with difficulties arising because children lack capacity to consent and acquire this capacity upon maturity when the research is still ongoing. Yet given the limited availability of pediatric samples, the translational nature of biobanking presents a unique opportunity to share samples and produce clinically necessary information about pediatric development and diseases. Guidance on navigating these legal and ethical difficulties is needed for those involved in pediatric biobanking-including researchers, participants, and families, and those involved in biobank governance. This paper seeks to map the current regulatory framework governing pediatric biobanking to determine what guidance is currently offered. Regulatory mapping of current international and national guidelines on pediatric biobanking addressing the ethical, legal, and social nuances of pediatric biobanking was undertaken. This paper finds that international guidelines around biobanking are mostly for adults, and even when pediatric-specific, documents are non-binding, inconsistent, or only limited guidance is offered on a range of important issues specific to pediatric biobanks.   Conclusion: This paper shows a need for consistent, comprehensive, and clear regulation on pediatric biobanking so that research can more quickly, efficiently, and ethically be translated to useful information and treatment in pediatric care. What is Known: • Pediatric biobanking presents new opportunities to conduct valuable translational research to benefit pediatric populations. However, the storage of pediatric biological samples raises many ethical, legal and social issues-in part because child participants may be considered to lack capacity to consent but can acquire this capacity upon maturity when the research is still ongoing. Pediatric biobanks must grapple with issues of consent, confidentiality and privacy, and long-term participation regarding child participants. What is New: • Regulatory guidance on these ethical, legal, and social issues is needed for researchers, participants, and families and those involved in biobank governance. This paper identifies nationally specific and international guidance on biobanking and summarizes the guidance provided in relation to these pediatric specific issues. It finds that most guidance is non-binding and inconsistent between guidance documents and may offer only limited guidance to stakeholders. A need for consistent, comprehensive, and clear regulation on pediatric biobanking is needed at an international level to enable research.

How should China set ethical guardrails for medical research?

'Ethics first' reform in China significantly changes the governance framework for the research of emerging technologies. The misapplication of human genome editing technology reflects the urgent need to reform the governance framework. Strengthening ethics governance in medical research has become a consensus in China, where legal and ethical reforms are proceeding in parallel. The protection of human dignity, the prevention of biosafety risks, as well as the regulation of technological crimes are at the core of the legal system, which has been embodied in numerous fundamental legislations following the CRISPR-babies incident. Establishing a national ethics committee to coordinate ethics governance, and reinforcing ethics review and external oversight are significant steps in ethical reform. Essentially, ethics governance requires implementing the basic concept of 'ethics first', focusing on forward-looking and preventive governance rather than delayed intervention, while maintaining openness and collaboration.

Should the Use of Adaptive Machine Learning Systems in Medicine be Classified as Research?

A novel advantage of the use of machine learning (ML) systems in medicine is their potential to continue learning from new data after implementation in clinical practice. To date, considerations of the ethical questions raised by the design and use of adaptive machine learning systems in medicine have, for the most part, been confined to discussion of the so-called "update problem," which concerns how regulators should approach systems whose performance and parameters continue to change even after they have received regulatory approval. In this paper, we draw attention to a prior ethical question: whether the continuous learning that will occur in such systems after their initial deployment should be classified, and regulated, as medical research? We argue that there is a strong prima facie case that the use of continuous learning in medical ML systems should be categorized, and regulated, as research and that individuals whose treatment involves such systems should be treated as research subjects.

Weighing the moral status of brain organoids and research animals.

Recent advances in human brain organoid systems have raised serious worries about the possibility that these in vitro 'mini-brains' could develop sentience, and thus, moral status. This article considers the relative moral status of sentient human brain organoids and research animals, examining whether we have moral reasons to prefer using one over the other. It argues that, contrary to common intuitions, the wellbeing of sentient human brain organoids should not be granted greater moral consideration than the wellbeing of nonhuman research animals. It does so not by denying that typical humans have higher moral status than animals, but instead by arguing that none of the leading justifications for granting humans higher moral status than nonhuman animals apply to brain organoids. Additionally, it argues that there are no good reasons to be more concerned about the well-being of human brain organoids compared to those generated from other species.

Accounting for future populations in health research.

The research we fund today will improve the health of people who will live tomorrow. But future people will not all benefit equally: decisions we make about what research to prioritize will predictably affect when and how much different people benefit from research. Organizations that fund health research should thus fairly account for the health needs of future populations when setting priorities. To this end, some research funders aim to allocate research resources in accordance with disease burden, prioritizing illnesses that cause more morbidity and mortality. In this article, I defend research funders' practice of aligning research funding with disease burden but argue that funders should aim to align research funding with future-rather than present-disease burden. I suggest that research funders should allocate research funding in proportion to aggregated estimates of disease burden over the period when research could plausibly start to yield benefits until indefinitely into the future.