Incorporating ethics and welfare into randomized experiments.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enroll hundreds of millions of subjects and involve many human lives. To improve subjects' welfare, I propose a design of RCTs that I call Experiment-as-Market (EXAM). EXAM produces a welfare-maximizing allocation of treatment-assignment probabilities, is almost incentive-compatible for preference elicitation, and unbiasedly estimates any causal effect estimable with standard RCTs. I quantify these properties by applying EXAM to a water-cleaning experiment in Kenya. In this empirical setting, compared to standard RCTs, EXAM improves subjects' predicted well-being while reaching similar treatment-effect estimates with similar precision.

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.

Indignity of Nazi data: reflections on the utilization of illicit research.

Human rights may feel self-apparent to us, but less than 80 years ago, one of the most advanced countries at the time acted based on an utterly contrary ideology. The view of social Darwinism that abandoned the idea of the intrinsic value of human lives instead argued that oppression of the inferior is not only inevitable but desirable. One of the many catastrophic outcomes is the medical data obtained from inhuman experiments at concentration camps. Ethical uncertainty over whether the resulting insights should be a part of the medical literature provides a chance to consider the seemingly irreplaceable social construct of human dignity. Would any medical benefit justify the utilization of this illicit data? Would utilization even qualify as an insult to the dignity of the exploited subjects, or is this a question about intersubjective meaning? This work discusses the wisdom in blind adherence to human dignity, the possibility of retrospective insults, moral complicity, contrary viewpoints, and possible resolutions.

Ethics in field experimentation: A call to establish new standards to protect the public from unwanted manipulation and real harms.

In 1966, Henry Beecher published his foundational paper "Ethics and Clinical Research," bringing to light unethical experiments that were routinely being conducted by leading universities and government agencies. A common theme was the lack of voluntary consent. Research regulations surrounding laboratory experiments flourished after his work. More than half a century later, we seek to follow in his footsteps and identify a new domain of risk to the public: certain types of field experiments. The nature of experimental research has changed greatly since the Belmont Report. Due in part to technological advances including social media, experimenters now target and affect whole societies, releasing interventions into a living public, often without sufficient review or controls. A large number of social science field experiments do not reflect compliance with current ethical and legal requirements that govern research with human participants. Real-world interventions are being conducted without consent or notice to the public they affect. Follow-ups and debriefing are routinely not being undertaken with the populations that experimenters injure. Importantly, even when ethical research guidelines are followed, researchers are following principles developed for experiments in controlled settings, with little assessment or protection for the wider societies within which individuals are embedded. We strive to improve the ethics of future work by advocating the creation of new norms, illustrating classes of field experiments where scholars do not appear to have recognized the ways such research circumvents ethical standards by putting people, including those outside the manipulated group, into harm's way.

Building global capacity for brain and nervous system disorders research.

The global burden of neurological, neuropsychiatric, substance-use and neurodevelopmental disorders in low- and middle-income countries is worsened, not only by the lack of targeted research funding, but also by the lack of relevant in-country research capacity. Such capacity, from the individual to the national level, is necessary to address the problems within a local context. As for many health issues in these countries, the ability to address this burden requires development of research infrastructure and a trained cadre of clinicians and scientists who can ask the right questions, and conduct, manage, apply and disseminate research for practice and policy. This Review describes some of the evolving issues, knowledge and programmes focused on building research capacity in low- and middle-income countries in general and for brain and nervous system disorders in particular.

Insights into the perception that research ethics committees are a barrier to research with seriously ill children: A study of committee minutes and correspondence with researchers studying seriously ill children.

BACKGROUND: Research ethics committees are commonly perceived as a 'barrier' to research involving seriously ill children. Researchers studying seriously ill children often feel that committees view their applications more harshly compared to applications for research with other populations. Whether or not this is the case in practice is unknown. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore committees' concerns, expectations and decisions for research applications involving seriously ill children submitted for review in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: Content analysis of committee meeting minutes, decision letters and researcher response letters. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Chief investigators for National Institute of Health Research portfolio studies involving seriously ill children were contacted for permission to review their study documents. RESULTS: Of the 77 applications included in this study, 57 received requests for revisions at first review. Committee expectations and concerns commonly related to participant information sheets, methodology, consent, recruitment or formatting. Changes were made to 53 of these studies, all of which were subsequently approved. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that committees review applications for research involving seriously ill children with the same scrutiny as applications for research with other populations. Yet, the perception that committees act as a barrier to this type of research persists. We suggest that this perception remains due to other factors including, but not limited to, the high levels of formatting or administrative revisions requested by committees or additional study requirements needed for research involving children, such as multiple versions of consent forms or participant information sheets.

Ethical guidelines for deliberately infecting volunteers with COVID-19.

Global fatalities related to COVID-19 are expected to be high in 2020-2021. Developing and delivering a vaccine may be the most likely way to end the pandemic. If it were possible to shorten this development time by weeks or months, this may have a significant effect on reducing deaths. Phase II and phase III trials could take less long to conduct if they used human challenge methods-that is, deliberately infecting participants with COVID-19 following inoculation. This article analyses arguments for and against such methods and provides suggested broad guidelines for regulators, researchers and ethics committees when considering these matters. It concludes that it may be possible to maintain current ethical standards yet still permit human challenge trials in a context where delay is critical. The implications are that regulators and researchers need to work together now to design robust but short trials and streamline ethics approval processes so that they are in place when applications for trials are made.

Human challenge trial workshop: Focus on quality requirements for challenge agents, Langen, Germany, October 22, 2019.

Controlled human infection models can be helpful to study pathogenesis and immune responses as a basis for the development of vaccines. In controlled human infection models, human challenge agents are used to infect healthy volunteers, therefore, ethical considerations include that the exposure studies need to be safe and results should be meaningful, e.g. contribute to a better cure. Both in the US and in Europe, the level of Good Manufacturing Practice required is related to the phase of the study ('sliding scale Good Manufacturing Practice'), and, hence, is much more open to speedy drug development than anticipated. Recommendations included: the development of guidelines for human challenge agents; a focus on strain selection, in particular with regard to strain infectivity, stability and purity; the use of whole genome sequencing; a reference repository of challenge agents, the need for early exchange with regulators to ensure acceptability of strain selection and manufacturing for later drug development; sharing of models and challenge agents.

SARS-CoV-2 controlled human infection models: Ethics, challenge agent production and regulatory issues.

This second International Alliance for Biological Standardization COVID-19 webinar brought together a broad range of international stakeholders, including academia, regulators, funders and industry, with a considerable participation from low- and middle-income countries, to discuss the use of controlled human infection models to accelerate development and market authorization assessment of a vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Judging the Social Value of Health-Related Research: Current Debate and Open Questions.

On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Belmont Report-one of the foundational documents of modern research ethics-this article reviews the ethical debate about the social value of health-related research with human participants. It shows that the Belmont Report discusses the social value of research only cursorily, much like most of the research ethics literature until recently. The article then reviews the current debate and open questions about the social value of health-related research, organized around three questions: (1) is social value a necessary ethical requirement for health-related research with human participants? (2) if so, how should a social value requirement should be specified? and (3) how should such a requirement be implemented in practice?

Belmont in Context.

Given its outsized influence as a core document in bioethics, it is worth reminding ourselves of the historical context in which the Belmont Report came to be. This article examines the societal forces that helped bring about the Belmont Report and that shaped its conception of ethical research. A product of a public investigation that included many nonscientists and espoused philosophical principles, the Report internalized a growing call in the late 1960s for oversight over the research enterprise, which had long been the private realm of physician-investigators. Belmont helped bring about a regulatory and oversight apparatus to the research enterprise, as well as a language and discipline of bioethics that added a multidisciplinary set of voices and decision-makers to discussions of what constitutes ethical research. Because it reflected the spirit of protectionism engendered by events of the 1960s and 1970s, Belmont also helped emphasize the importance of informed consent and the protection of vulnerable populations. But because the Report was a product of its time, contingent on historical developments and highly publicized events, it is not necessarily responsive to new factors that now condition the research enterprise.

Belmont in Europe: A Mostly Indirect Influence.

This paper traces the reception of the Belmont Report in Europe and its influence on the development of European research ethics thinking and European research ethics systems. It is very difficult to trace a clear, linear reception history because it is difficult to disentangle the influence of the Report from the influence of concurrent developments, such as the 1975 revision of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and the requirement for research ethics review in the Vancouver Group's 1978 "Uniform Requirements for Manuscript Submission." The Report's insistence that the focus of research ethics should be the rights and interests of the individual research subject, and the use of an ethical framework and not ethical theory as the basis of analysis and justification of recommendations, were nevertheless very important for the development of research ethics. The divergence between Europe and the US in the governance of non-biomedical research can at least partly be explained by the absence of strong drivers for the introduction of research ethics committees outside of biomedicine in Europe, and by the ability of non-biomedical researchers to mobilize effectively against the introduction of such committees.

The Belmont Report and Innovative Practice.

One of the Belmont Report's most important contributions was the clear and serviceable distinction it drew between standard medical practice and biomedical research. A less well-known achievement of the Report was its conceptualization of innovative practice, a type of medical practice that is often mistaken for research because it is new, untested, or experimental. Although the discussion of innovative practice in Belmont is brief and somewhat cryptic, this does not reflect the significant progress its authors made in understanding innovative practice and the distinctive ethical issues it raises. This article explores the history and broader context of Belmont's conception of innovative practice, its strengths and weaknesses, and its contemporary relevance for scholars working in bioethics and health policy. While this conception of innovative practice deserves our attention, it is inherently limited in some important ways.

Towards Identifying an Upper Limit of Risk: A Persistent Area of Controversy in Research Ethics.

Whether there is an upper limit of net risk that volunteers can consent to in research, and what that limit happens to be, has been the subject of persistent controversy in research ethics. This article defends the concept of an upper limit of risk in research against recent critics and supports the most promising approach for identifying this limit, that of finding comparator activities that are generally accepted in society and pose high levels of risk. However, high-risk activities that have been proposed as relevant comparators involve more certain benefits and confer considerable social esteem to those who take on the risks. This suggests that developing a robust approach to identifying social value, whether by developing a procedural safeguard or a systematic framework, could more effectively identify research with sufficient social value to justify high net risk. Additionally, the social status of research participants should be elevated to be more on par with others who laudably take on high risk for the benefit of others. By attending to the benefits necessary for the justification of high-risk research, the level of allowable risk will no longer be so controversial.