A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt's new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients. METHODS: We conducted a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws. RESULTS: On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones. CONCLUSION: The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond.

Constitutional and legal status of the subject during biomedical research.

OBJECTIVE: Aim: To find out the peculiarities of constitutional and legal status of the subject during biomedical research. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: A synergistic approach helps predict possible fluctuations and vectors of development, taking into account various social and technical processes of influence on the status of the subject; comprehensive - involves the analysis of the research subject within the framework of a combination of different scientific schools, concepts and methods and provides opportunities for the development of unified standards, benchmarks, principles and general norms of legal regulation. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: The constitutional-legal status of the subject is the position of the subject (patient, object of research) established and established by the norms of constitutional law, which distinguishes him as a special subject of legal relations in the process of conducting biomedical research and consists of a set of rights and obligations and specifics of the legal liability of its participants.

International Policy Frameworks for Consent in Minimal-risk Pragmatic Trials.

There is intense debate around the use of altered and waived consent for pragmatic trials. Those in favor argue that traditional consent compromises the internal and external validity of these trials. Those against, warn that the resultant loss of autonomy compromises respect for persons and could undermine trust in the research enterprise.This article examines whether international ethical guidelines and the policy frameworks in three countries-the United States, England, and Australia-permit altered and waived consent for minimal-risk pragmatic trials conducted outside the emergency setting. Provisions for both are clearly articulated in U.S. regulations, but many countries do not have equivalent frameworks. Investigators should not assume that all consent models permitted in the United States are legal in their jurisdictions, even if they are deemed ethically defensible.The authors summarize ethical and regulatory considerations and present a framework for investigators contemplating trials with altered or waived consent.

When and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials.

There has been a good deal of discussion in the literature regarding which subjects are vulnerable in the context of clinical trials. There has been significantly less discussion regarding when and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials. This lack of guidance is a particular problem for trials covered by the US regulations, which mandate strict requirements on the inclusion of three groups: pregnant women/fetuses, prisoners, and children. For the past 30 years, funders, investigators, and institutional review boards have frequently responded to these regulations by excluding pregnant women/fetuses, prisoners, and children from clinical trials. More recent work has emphasized the extent to which a default of exclusion can undermine the value of clinical trials, especially pragmatic trials. A default of exclusion also has the potential to undermine the interests of vulnerable groups, in both the short and the long term. These concerns raise the need for guidance on how to satisfy existing US regulations, while minimizing their negative impact on the value of clinical trials and the interests of vulnerable groups. The present manuscript thus describes a six-step decision procedure that institutional review boards can use to determine when and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials, including pragmatic trials, that are covered by US regulations.

The rise and fall of an opt-out system.

Introduction: In Denmark, citizens participate in register-based research without the possibility of opting out. However, in 1995 it was made possible for Danish citizens to register an opt-out called 'researcher protection' [forskerbeskyttelse], which implied that researchers could not contact people to invite them to participate in research projects, such as clinical trials or questionnaries, based on their registrations in national registers. Data already registered could still be used for research. In 2014, this possibility of opt-out was revoked by law. Aims: The aims of this paper are to understand how the Danish researcher protection system came about, why it was terminated and what we can we learn from this example. Methods: We conducted a descriptive analysis of a copy of the former researcher protection register along with policies and media debate surrounding the rise and revocation of the researcher protection system. Results: Our results show how both the inception and the abolishment of researcher protection appear to be ad hoc and without specified criteria of success. An examination of the recorded entries in the researcher protection registry could have led to changes in its administration as an alternative to its total abolition. Conclusions: In future opt-out systems, there should be focus on monitoring register practices and the purpose and criteria for evaluation must be defined prior to implementation.

Transnational policy migration, interdisciplinary policy transfer and decolonization: Tracing the patterns of research ethics regulation in Taiwan.

Research ethics regulation in parts of the Global North has sometimes been initiated in the face of biomedical scandal. More recently, developing and recently developed countries have had additional reasons to regulate, doing so to attract international clinical trials and American research funding, publish in international journals, or to respond to broader social changes. In Taiwan, biomedical research ethics policy based on 'principlism' and committee-based review were imported from the United States. Professionalisation of research ethics displaced other longer-standing ways of conceiving ethics connected with Taiwanese cultural traditions. Subsequently, the model and its discursive practices were extended to other disciplines. Regulation was also shaped by decolonizing discourses associated with asserting Indigenous peoples' rights. Locating research ethics regulation within the language and practices of public policy formation and transfer as well as decolonization, allows analysis to move beyond the self-referential and attend to the social, economic and political context within which regulation operates.

Advance Research Directives: Legal and Ethical Issues and Insights from a National Survey of Dementia Researchers in Australia.

Advance research directives (ARDs) are a means by which people can document their wishes about research participation in the event of future incapacity. ARDs have been endorsed in some ethics guidelines and position statements, however, formal legal recognition is limited. A few empirical studies have investigated the views of researchers and other stakeholders on ARDs and tested strategies to implement such directives. To further knowledge in this area, we undertook a survey of dementia researchers in Australia (n= 63) to examine their views on ARDs. Most of the survey respondents (>80%) thought ARDs would promote autonomy in decision-making and enable opportunities for people with cognitive impairment to be included in research. Respondents indicated concern about directives not being available when needed (71%) and that ethics committees would not accept ARDs (60%). Few respondents had used ARDs, but a majority (from 57-80%) would be willing to offer ARDs for a range of research activities, such as observing behaviour and taking measures, blood samples or scans. Nearly all respondents (92%) agreed that current dissent should override prior wishes stated in an ARD. The survey findings are contextualised with attention to ethics guidelines, laws and practices to support advance research planning.

Protecting Privacy of Pregnant and LGBTQ+ Research Participants.

This Viewpoint summarizes existing federal regulations aimed at protecting research data, describes the challenges of enforcing these regulations, and discusses how evolving privacy technologies could be used to reduce health disparities and advance health equity among pregnant and LGBTQ+ research participants.

Compliance with National Ethics Requirements for Human-Subject Research in Non-biomedical Sciences in Brazil: A Changing Culture?

Ethics regulation for human-subject research (HSR) has been established for about 20 years in Brazil. However, compliance with this regulation is controversial for non-biomedical sciences, particularly for human and social sciences (HSS), the source of a recent debate at the National Commission for Research Ethics. We hypothesized that for these fields, formal requirements for compliance with HSR regulation in graduate programs, responsible for the greatest share of Brazilian science, would be small in number. We analyzed institutional documents (collected from June 2014 to May 2015) from 171 graduate programs at six prestigious Brazilian universities in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, the states that fund most of the science conducted in Brazil. Among these programs, 149 were in HSS. The results suggest that non-compliance with standard regulation seems to be the rule in most of these programs. The data may reflect not only a resistance from scientists in these fields to comply with standard regulations for ethics in HSR but also a disciplinary tradition that seems prevalent when it comes to research ethics in HSR. However, recent encounters between Brazilian biomedical and non-biomedical scientists for debates over ethics in HSR point to a changing culture in the approach to research ethics in the country.

Using Drones to Study Human Beings: Ethical and Regulatory Issues.

Researchers have used drones to track wildlife populations, monitor forest fires, map glaciers, and measure air pollution but have only begun to consider how to use these unmanned aerial vehicles to study human beings. The potential use of drones to study public gatherings or other human activities raises novel issues of privacy, confidentiality, and consent, which this article explores in depth. It argues that drone research could fall into several different categories: non-human subjects research (HSR), exempt HSR, or non-exempt HSR. In the case of non-exempt HSR, it will be difficult for institutional review boards to approve studies unless they are designed so that informed consent can be waived. Whether drone research is non-HSR, exempt HSR, or non-exempt HSR, it is important for investigators to consult communities which could be affected by the research.

A Defense of Limited Regulation of Human Genetic Therapies.

There is a role for regulatory oversight over new genetic technologies. Research must ensure the rights of human subjects, and all medical products and techniques should be ensured to be safe and effective. In the United States, these forms of regulation are largely the purview of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Some have argued, however, that human genetic therapies require new regulatory agencies empowered to enforce cultural norms, protect against hypothetical social harms, or ensure that the human genome remains unchanged. Focusing on the United States, this essay will briefly review these arguments and argue that the current limited regulatory role over human gene therapies is sufficient to protect public health, bodily autonomy, and reproductive freedom.

Beyond Nazi War Crimes Experiments: The Voluntary Consent Requirement of the Nuremberg Code at 70.

The year 2017 marks both the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg Code and the first major revisions of federal research regulations in almost 3 decades. I suggest that the informed consent provisions of the federal research regulations continue to follow the requirements of the Nuremberg Code. However, modifications are needed to the informed consent (and institutional review board) provisions to make the revised federal regulations more effective in promoting a genuine conversation between the researcher and the research subject. This conversation must take seriously both the therapeutic illusion and the desire of both the researcher and the research subject not to engage in sharing uncertainty.

Informed Consent for the Human Research Subject with a Neurologic Disorder.

The doctrine of informed consent sits at the intersection of law, ethics, and neuroscience, posing unique challenges for human subject research involving neurological patients. These challenges are compounded by the variegated nature of both neurological injury and the law governing research consent. This article provides a framework for investigators likely to encounter subjects with some degree of neurological impairment, whose capacity to consent requires scrupulous assessment prior to enrollment in research trials. We consider several researches and disease contexts-from emergency epilepsy research to long-term dementia research-and clarify the ethical and legal principles governing consent for participation in each. We additionally explore empirical research on consent capacity and survey several areas of emerging ethical import that will require the attention of investigators in decades to come.

Healthcare professionals' understanding of the legislation governing research involving adults lacking mental capacity in England and Wales: a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine health and social care professionals' understanding of the legislation governing research involving adults lacking mental capacity in England and Wales. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted using a series of vignettes. Participants were asked to select the legally authorised decision-maker in each scenario and provide supporting reasons. Responses were compared with existing legal frameworks and analysed according to their level of concordance. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven professionals participated. Levels of discordance between responses and the legal frameworks were high across all five scenarios (76%-82%). Nearly half of the participants (46%) provided responses that were discordant in all scenarios. Only two participants (2%) provided concordant responses across all five scenarios. DISCUSSION: Participants demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the legal frameworks, the locus of authority and the legal basis for decision-making. The findings raise concern about the accessibility of research for those who lack capacity, the ability to conduct research involving such groups and the impact on the evidence base for their care. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to examine health and social care professionals' knowledge and understanding of the dual legal frameworks in the UK. Health and social care professionals' understanding and attitudes towards research involving adults with incapacity may warrant further in-depth exploration. The findings from this survey suggest that greater training and education is required.

The UK Mental Capacity Act and consent to research participation: asking the right question.

This paper considers the meaning of the term 'intrusive research', as used in the UK Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), in relation to studies in which an informant is asked to provide information about or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity to consent, and who is not otherwise involved in the study. The MCA defines 'intrusive research' as research that would legally require consent if it involved people with capacity. The relevant ethical principles are that consent should be sought from people who would be affected by a piece of research and that this requirement should be implemented proportionately. The critical question, for investigators and research ethics committees, is: would provision of the personal information specified in the research protocol significantly affect a person whose capacity is not impaired? If the answer to this question is 'no', then the study falls outside the definition of 'intrusive research', and the MCA does not apply.

Researching about us without us: exploring research participation and the politics of disability rights in the context of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The right to active participation by disabled people in academic research has been discussed at length in recent years, along with the potential for such research to function as a tool in challenging oppression and pursuing disability rights. Significant ethical, legal and methodological dilemmas arise, however, in circumstances where a disabled person loses the capacity to provide informed consent to such participation. In this article, I consider disability politics and academic research in the context of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, which sets out in Anglo-Welsh law the circumstances and requirements for research participation by individuals lacking the capacity to provide informed consent. Drawing on my own perspective on research participation in relation to physical and psychosocial disability, I consider the implications of my potential future loss of capacity (eg, if I were to be in a vegetative or minimally conscious state following an accident) for my right to participate in disability-related research. I examine the barriers to such participation and suggest that partial solutions may be found in the advance decision-making and advance care-planning frameworks of the MCA 2005 and related policy, but that current legislative and policy frameworks nevertheless still curtail my rights with regard to research participation on loss of capacity to consent. In so doing, I seek to provoke debate concerning what this legislative provision means for the disability rights movement, and the possibilities and challenges it presents to the movement's commitment to 'nothing about us without us'.

Navigating the Perfect Storm: Ethical Guidance for Conducting Research Involving Participants with Multiple Vulnerabilities.

The development of ethical guidelines and regulations regarding human subjects research has focused upon protection of vulnerable populations by relying on a categorical approach to vulnerability. This results in several challenges: First, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) struggle to interpret and apply the regulations because they are often vague and inconsistent. Second, applying the regulations to subjects who fit within multiple categories of vulnerability can lead to contradictions and the rejection of research that would be permissible if only one category were applicable. Finally, some potential subjects have social and other context-based vulnerabilities that are not described in the federal regulations and therefore not considered in IRB deliberations. IRBs and investigators lack guidance on how to address the problem of multiple vulnerabilities in a way that strikes a balance between protection and respect for persons. In this essay, we evaluate the acceptability of the existing federal regulations with respect to research participants with multiple vulnerabilities, offer strategies for rethinking the concept of vulnerability, and outline a context-based normative framework to account for the compounding effects of multiple vulnerabilities.

Call of Duty at the Frontier of Research: Normative Epistemology for High-Risk/High-Gain Studies of Deep Brain Stimulation.

Research participants are entitled to many rights that may easily come into conflict. The most important ones are that researchers respect their autonomy as persons and act on the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Since 2014, research subjects from numerous states in the United States of America also have a legal "right to try" that allows them, under certain circumstances, to receive experimental (i.e., preliminarily tested) interventions, including medical devices, before official approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration. In the context of experimental interventions, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Alzheimer's disease, this article argues that research participants ought never to have a legal "right to try" without a corresponding "right to be sure." The latter refers to external epistemic justification construed in terms of reliance on reliable evidence. This article demonstrates that the mere complexity of intervention ensembles, as in the case of DBS for Alzheimer's disease which serves as a paradigm example, illustrate how unanswered and/or unasked open questions give rise to a "combinatorial explosion" of uncertainties that require epistemic responses that no single research team alone is likely able to provide. From this assessment, several epistemic asymmetrical relations between researchers and participants are developed. By elucidating these epistemic asymmetries, this article unravels the reasons why open science, transparent exhaustive data reporting, preregistration, and continued constant critical appraisal via pre- and postpublication peer review are not scientific virtues of moral excellence but rather ordinary obligations of the scientific work routine required to increase reliability and strength of evidence.

New and Improved? 21st Century Cures Act Revisions to Certificates of Confidentiality.

Certificates of Confidentiality ("Certificates") are a federal legal tool designed to protect sensitive, identifiable research data from compelled disclosure. Congress first authorized their use in 1970 to facilitate research on illegal drug use. The scope of their use was later expanded to cover mental health research and then again to apply broadly to identifiable, sensitive research data, regardless of topic. Certificates can be critical to enabling conduct of essential research on sensitive topics, such as effective interventions to curb the opioid epidemic or reduce HIV transmission among minority youth. Nevertheless, there have been criticisms about Certificates and their use on several grounds. For example, researchers and institutional review boards ("IRBs") may lack sufficient knowledge about them and, therefore, may not consider using them in studies for which they would be appropriate. In contrast to other protections, such as Department of Justice Privacy Certificates, Certificate protections were not automatically extended to these studies, but instead required an application. In addition, the concept of identifiable data had not kept up with technological changes that may allow for reidentification of data previously considered unidentifiable. Although a researcher who obtained a Certificate could use it to resist a legal demand for identifiable data, little was known about the actual effectiveness of the protection provided. The 21st Century Cures Act substantially revises the Certificates authorizing statute, and many of the changes are directly responsive to the criticisms that have been raised. Significantly, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") must issue Certificate protection to federally funded research involving identifiable, sensitive research data, and the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") will automatically include such protections to research it funds. Non-federally funded researchers can continue to apply for Certificate protection. The definition of identifiable has been expanded to include data "for which there is at least a very small risk" of identification. Certificates will now not only protect against compelled disclosure, but also render protected data inadmissible in legal proceedings without participant consent. In addition, voluntary disclosure is no longer authorized, but there is now a broad exception for disclosure as required by federal, state, and local laws. In this paper, based on our previous research on Certificates, we critically evaluate the 21st Century Cures Act's Certificates revisions and their positive and negative impact on the dual goals of facilitating important, sensitive research while maximally protecting individual research participants.

Returning Results to Family Members: Professional Duties in Genomics Research in the United States.

 This article critically appraises the ethical and legal duties to disclose findings to the family members of research participants. These family members stand to benefit in important ways from discoveries that can inform their own health and reproductive risks. However, careful appreciation of how medical research differs from clinical practice and of the uncertainties at stake in genomic research complicates any warning to relatives. Research laboratories should generally be immune from liability for failing to diagnose or disclose a genetic disorder in time to prevent adverse outcomes for a participant's family members or to return properly interpreted test results for even direct findings under investigation, let alone incidental ones. The only exception is where warning relatives of medical risks is very likely to prevent imminent harm and would not override known participant wishes. Genomic autopsy studies for sudden death satisfy these conditions of life-saving potential for relatives without disrespect to subjects. These are among the rare instances in which we conclude that offering results to family members is not just permissible but obligatory, not just as a moral matter but as a legal one.