Future pandemics and the urge to 'do something'.

Research with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP) makes pathogens substantially more lethal, communicable, immunosuppressive or otherwise capable of triggering a pandemic. We briefly relay an existing argument that the benefits of ePPP research do not outweigh its risks and then consider why proponents of these arguments continue to confidently endorse them. We argue that these endorsements may well be the product of common cognitive biases-in which case they would provide no challenge to the argument against ePPP research. If the case against ePPP research is strong, the views of professional experts do little to move the needle in favour of ePPP research.

When offering a patient beneficial treatment undermines public health.

Sometimes, offering someone beneficial care is likely to thwart the similar or more serious medical needs of more people. For example, when acute shortage is strongly predicted to persist, providing the long period on scarce intensive care that a certain COVID-19 patient needs is sometimes projected to block several future COVID-19 patients from receiving the shorter periods on intensive care that they will need. Expected utility is typically higher if the former is denied intensive care. A tempting initial account of such cases is that consequentialism supports denying care to that patient and nonconsequentialism supports providing that care. This paper argues that the consequentialist case is more complicated than it may initially seem and that nonconsequentialism sides more readily with denial of the beneficial treatment. It also shows that when denying it would directly enhance public health by a lot, either ethical approach would normally recommend denying it. Practical implications are discussed, including how to address conscientious objection to this shared recommendation.

Ethical and legal race-responsive vaccine allocation.

In many countries, the COVID-19 pandemic varied starkly between different racial and ethnic groups. Before vaccines were approved, some considered assigning priority access to worse-hit racial groups. That debate can inform rationing in future pandemics and in some of the many areas outside COVID-19 that admit of racial health disparities. However, concerns were raised that "race-responsive" prioritizations would be ruled unlawful for allegedly constituting wrongful discrimination. This legal argument relies on an understanding of discrimination law as demanding color-blindness. We argue that a, color-blind understanding of discrimination would be hostile only to one of two rationales for prioritizing the relevant racial minorities in settings of racial health disparities. We also propose a method for incorporating appropriate race-responsive concerns that is in many ways ethically and legally superior to ones suggested thus far. That method turns artificial intelligence, thanks precisely to its artificial and "black box" nature (features that underlie recent concerns about artificial intelligence's discriminatory potential), into an instrument of social justice.

The phantasm of zero suicide.

Governments and non-governmental organisations are increasingly adopting a 'zero-suicide' goal, but what such a goal precisely involves is unclear. Ostensibly it strongly prioritises the prevention and elimination of all suicide. We argue that, so understood, a societal goal of zero suicide risks contravening several ethical principles. In terms of beneficence and non-maleficence, a 'zero-suicide' goal risks being inefficient and may burden or harm many people. Autonomy-wise, a blanket ban on all suicide is excessive. As regards social justice, zero suicide risks focusing on the symptoms of social malaise instead of the structures causing it. With respect to transparency, a 'zero' goal that cannot be met makes these authorities look detached and risks frustration, distrust and, worse, stigmatisation of suicide and of mental health conditions. Instead, we propose a middle path for suicide prevention, founded on harm reduction, 'soft group paternalism' and efforts directed at increased quality of life for disadvantaged groups. Although soft group paternalism respects autonomy, this approach permits coercive interferences in certain circumstances. We hope that the justificatory framework tying together these largely familiar elements is novel and sensible.

Mass drug administration of azithromycin: an analysis.

BACKGROUND: WHO recommends mass drug administration (MDA) of the antibiotic azithromycin for children aged 1-11 months in areas with high rates of infant and child mortality. Notwithstanding the substantial potential benefits of lowering childhood mortality, MDA raises understandable concerns about exacerbating antibiotic resistance. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the use of MDA using both quantitative and ethical considerations. SOURCES: We performed a series of literature searches between July 2019 and June 2022. CONTENT: We first compared MDA with other uses of antibiotics using the standard metric of 'number needed to treat', and five additional criteria: (1) other widely accepted uses of anti-infectives (2) absolute use (i.e. total number), of antibiotics, (3) risk-benefit trade-off, (4) availability of short-term alternatives, and (5) the precedent for implementing similar interventions. We found that MDA falls well within a justifiable range when compared with widely accepted uses of antibiotics in terms of the number needed to treat. The other five criteria we considered provided further support for the use of MDA to prevent childhood mortality. IMPLICATIONS: Although better data on antibiotic use and resistance are needed, efforts to reduce antibiotic use and resistance should not start with halting MDA of azithromycin in the areas with the highest rates of childhood mortality. Improving data to inform this decision is critical. However, on the basis of the best evidence available, we believe that concerns regarding resistance should not thwart MDA; instead, MDA should be accompanied by robust plans to monitor its efficacy and changes in resistance levels. Similar considerations could be included in a framework for evaluating the benefits of antibiotics against the risk of resistance in other contexts.

Characterizing altruistic motivation in potential volunteers for SARS-CoV-2 challenge trials.

In human challenge trials (HCTs), volunteers are deliberately infected with an infectious agent. Such trials can be used to accelerate vaccine development and answer important scientific questions. Starting early in the COVID-19 pandemic, ethical concerns were raised about using HCTs to accelerate development and approval of a vaccine. Some of those concerns pertained to potential exploitation of and/or lack of truly informed consent from volunteers. Specific areas of concern arose around individuals who may be unusually risk-seeking or too economically vulnerable to refuse the payments these trials provide, as opposed to being motivated primarily by altruistic goals. This pre-registered study is the first large-scale survey to characterize people who, early in the pandemic, expressed interest and intention to volunteer to participate in COVID-19 HCTs. We found that individuals expressing interest in SARS-CoV-2 HCTs exhibit consistently altruistic motivations without any special indication of poor risk perception or economic vulnerability. In finding that, early in the pandemic, COVID-19 HCTs were able to attract volunteers whose values align with the nature of these trials, and who are not unusually vulnerable to exploitation, this study may allay some ethical concerns about the volunteers interested in participating in such trials.

The ethical case for placebo control in HIV-cure-related studies with ART interruption.

Many studies that seek to cure HIV must ask participants to interrupt their antiretroviral treatment. In such circumstances, is it permissible to include a placebo group in the study? We explain why doing so is a scientific and an ethical necessity, and more benign than imagined.

A new day for human challenge trials?

Two years into the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and following several hot debates, the world's first COVID-19 human challenge trial has recently been published by Killingley et al. We review its findings and explain why this particular juncture in time makes additional challenge trials for COVID-19 and for other diseases justified and important.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Prioritization in Low- and Middle-Income Countries May Justifiably Depart From High-Income Countries' Age Priorities.

In high-income countries that were first to roll out coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, older adults have thus far usually been prioritized for these vaccines over younger adults. Age-based priority primarily resulted from interpreting evidence available at the time, which indicated that vaccinating the elderly first would minimize COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations. The World Health Organization counsels a similar approach for all countries. This paper argues that some low- and middle-income countries that are short of COVID-19 vaccine doses might be justified in revising this approach and instead prioritizing certain younger persons when allocating current vaccines or future variant-specific vaccines.

Research ethics and public trust in vaccines: the case of COVID-19 challenge trials.

Despite their clearly demonstrated safety and effectiveness, approved vaccines against COVID-19 are commonly mistrusted. Nations should find and implement effective ways to boost vaccine confidence. But the implications for ethical vaccine development are less straightforward than some have assumed. Opponents of COVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, in particular, made speculative or empirically implausible warnings on this matter, some of which, if applied consistently, would have ruled out most COVID-19 vaccine trials and many non-pharmaceutical responses.

Consent Requirements for Testing Health Policies: An Intercontinental Comparison of Expert Opinions.

Individual informed consent is a central requirement for clinical research on human subjects, yet whether and how consent requirements should apply to health policy experiments (HPEs) remains unclear. HPEs test and evaluate public health policies prior to implementation. We interviewed 58 health experts in Tanzania, Bangladesh and Germany on informed consent requirements for HPEs. Health experts across all countries favored a strong evidence base, prior information to the affected populations, and individual consent for 'risky' HPEs. Differences pertained to individual risk perception, how and when consent by group representatives should be obtained and whether HPEs could be treated as health policies. The study adds to representative consent options for HPEs, yet shows that more research is needed in this field - particularly in the present Covid-19 pandemic which has highlighted the need for HPEs nationally and globally.

Pandemic vaccine testing: Combining conventional and challenge studies.

Early into COVID, human challenge trials were considered, but usually as alternatives to conventional randomized controlled trials. Instead, assessment of authorized COVID vaccines, of further COVID vaccines, and of vaccines against future pandemics should combine both designs, in five different ways, including a wholly novel one that we elaborate, Viz., combining data from both designs to answer a single question.

"The research assistants kept coming to follow me up; I counted myself as a lucky person": Social support arising from a longitudinal HIV cohort study in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Participation in longitudinal research studies in resource-limited settings often involves frequent interactions with study staff and other participants, as well as receipt of incentives and transportation reimbursements. Social support-receipt of material and emotional resources from one's social network-has been linked to antiretroviral adherence in sub-Saharan Africa. The extent to which social support arises from study participation, its range and depth, and its implications for observational study conduct, have not been extensively described. METHODS: We conducted individual open-ended and semi-structured interviews with participants in a longitudinal, observational antiretroviral therapy adherence monitoring study in Mbarara, Uganda. Participants were asked about their experiences in the longitudinal study and their interactions with research staff. We also interviewed study research assistants (RAs). Deductive and inductive coding were used to identify content related to the experience of study participation. Codes were organized into themes, and relationships between themes were used to develop overarching categories. RESULTS: Sixty longitudinal study participants and 6 RAs were interviewed. Instrumental and emotional social support emerged as pervasive and valued aspects of longitudinal study participation. Instrumental support that participants received consisted of enhanced linkage to medical care, health education, and direct and indirect material benefits. Emotional support consisted of perceptions of feeling "cared for" and social interactions that permitted escape from HIV-related stigma. Both instrumental and emotional support often arose through the close relationships participants formed with research staff and with each other. Study-derived social support motivated some participants to adhere to antiretroviral therapy-an unanticipated effect potentially influencing the longitudinal study's primary observational outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal study participation resulted in instrumental and emotional social support for participants. The depth of support participants experienced has implications for observational study design in resource-limited settings, including need to assess potential effects on study outcomes; consideration of social support during risk/benefit assessment in study ethics review and consent; and vigilance for consequences of social support loss when studies end.

COP27: The Prospects and Challenges for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

In line with the global trend, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has been growing vulnerable to the direct and indirect health effects of climate change including death tolls due to climatological disasters and diseases sensitive to climate change since the industrial revolution. Regarding the limited capacity of MENA countries to adapt and respond to these effects, and also after relative failures of the previous negotiation in Glasgow, in the upcoming COP27 in Egypt, the heads of the region's parties are determined to take advantage of the opportunity to host MENA to mitigate and prevent the worst effects of climate change. This would be achieved through mobilizing international partners to support climate resilience, a major economic transformation, and put health policy and management in a strategic position to contribute to thinking and action on these pressing matters, at least to avoid or minimize the future adverse consequences.

Do coronavirus vaccine challenge trials have a distinctive generalisability problem?

Notwithstanding the success of conventional field trials for vaccines against COVID-19, human challenge trials (HCTs) that could obtain more information about these and about other vaccines and further strategies against it are about to start in the UK. One critique of COVID-19 HCTs is their distinct paucity of information on crucial population groups. For safety reasons, these HCTs will exclude candidate participants of advanced age or with comorbidities that worsen COVID-19, yet a vaccine should (perhaps especially) protect such populations. We turn this cliché on its head. The truth is that either an HCT or a field trial has intrinsic generalisability limitations, that an HCT can expedite protection of high-risk participants even without challenging them with the virus, and that an important route to obtaining results generalisable to high-risk groups under either strategy is facilitated by HCTs.

The Ethics of Human Challenge Trials Using Emerging Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 Variants.

The world's first coronavirus disease 2019 human challenge trial using the D614G strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is underway in the United Kingdom. The Wellcome Trust is funding challenge stock preparation of the Beta and Delta variant for a follow-up human challenge trial, and researchers at hVIVO are considering conducting these trials. However, little has been written thus far about the ethical justifiability of human challenge trials with SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. We explore 2 specific characteristics of some variants that may initially be thought to make such trials unethical and conclude that SARS-CoV-2 variant challenge trials can remain ethical.