Unit 731 and moral repair.

Unit 731, a biological warfare research organisation that operated under the authority of the Imperial Japanese Army in the 1930s and 1940s, conducted brutal experiments on thousands of unconsenting subjects. Because of the US interest in the data from these experiments, the perpetrators were not prosecuted and the atrocities are still relatively undiscussed. What counts as meaningful moral repair in this case-what should perpetrators and collaborator communities do decades later? We argue for three non-ideal but realistic forms of moral repair: (1) a national policy in Japan against human experimentation without appropriate informed and voluntary consent; (2) the establishment of a memorial to the victims of Unit 731; and (3) US disclosure about its use of Unit 731 data and an apology for failing to hold the perpetrators accountable.

First, do no harm: the US sexually transmitted disease experiments in Guatemala.

Beginning in 1946, the United States government immorally and unethically-and, arguably, illegally-engaged in research experiments in which more than 5000 uninformed and unconsenting Guatemalan people were intentionally infected with bacteria that cause sexually transmitted diseases. Many have been left untreated to the present day. Although US President Barack Obama apologized in 2010, and although the US Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues found the Guatemalan experiments morally wrong, little if anything has been done to compensate the victims and their families. We explore the backdrop for this unethical medical research and violation of human rights and call for steps the United States should take to provide relief and compensation to Guatemala and its people.

Survey of users of TOPS, an internet-based system to prevent healthy subjects from over-volunteering for clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse users' experience of TOPS, an internet-based system that helps UK clinical research units to prevent healthy volunteers from participating in more than one non-therapeutic trial simultaneously, or starting a second trial too soon after the first. METHODS: We sent to all units that currently use TOPS an anonymous questionnaire comprising 18 questions about the effectiveness and ease of use of the system. RESULTS: Of 35 units that currently use TOPS, 31 (85.7 %) returned questionnaires. Most users find TOPS easy to use, had increased their detection rate of over-volunteering, and had rejected subjects as a result of using TOPS. A GP reply alone is not enough to prevent over-volunteering. Ethics committees, the MHRA and sponsors know about TOPS and support its use. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm that TOPS does prevent healthy subjects from over-volunteering. Consequently, the Health Research Authority has agreed to take over the management of TOPS. Ethics committee approval of a phase 1 trial and MHRA accreditation of the unit will henceforth be conditional on consistent and proper use of TOPS. That should enhance its effectiveness and improve the safety of volunteers in non-therapeutic trials in the UK.

Proper knowledge on toxicokinetics improves human hazard testing and subsequent health risk characterisation. A case study approach.

In the current EU legislative frameworks on chemicals safety, the requirements with respect to information on general kinetic parameters (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion or ADME) or integrated toxicokinetic parameters (TK, i.e. plasma concentration-time curve, area under the curve etcetera) in humans and experimental animals vary widely. For agrochemicals and cosmetics, there are regulatory requirements whereas for other frameworks, such as food ingredients, biocides, consumer products and high production volume chemicals (REACH) there are very little or no requirements. This paper presents case studies that illustrate the importance of ADME and TK data in regulatory risk characterisations. The examples were collected by interviewing regulatory risk assessors from various chemicals (non-pharmaceutical) frameworks. The case studies illustrate how (1) applying ADME/TK in an early phase of toxicity testing can be used to improve study design and support the 3R-goals and how (2) increased use of ADME/TK data can improve the final risk assessment.

TOPS: an internet-based system to prevent healthy subjects from over-volunteering for clinical trials.

AIM: Our aim was to set up a system to help UK clinical research units to prevent healthy volunteers from participating in more than one non-therapeutic trial simultaneously, or from starting a second trial too soon after the first. METHODS: TOPS (The Over-volunteering Prevention System) is internet-based, simple and quick to use, free to users and a charity run by a Board of Trustees. Users enter only two or three pieces of information: (1) 'National Insurance number' (NINO) of UK citizens, or 'passport number' and country of origin of non-UK citizens, as their identifier, (2) 'date of last dose' of trial medicine or (3) 'never dosed'. Subjects must consent, but TOPS collects only non-personal data, so it does not require Ethics Committee approval and is not covered by the Data Protection Act. RESULTS: A total of 55 research units (29 clinical research organisations, 5 pharmaceutical companies, 13 universities and 8 hospitals) throughout the UK have registered to use TOPS, and have entered 124,906 volunteers since we launched it. All commercial and many non-commercial units now use TOPS. In our unit, no subject has to the best of our knowledge participated in two trials simultaneously. TOPS has reduced to <1% the incidence of subjects attempting to volunteer within 3 months of completing another trial elsewhere, and very few have to our knowledge succeeded. CONCLUSION: TOPS is widely used and effective, and helps research units to comply with UK clinical trial regulations.

Swabbing students: should universities be allowed to facilitate educational DNA testing?

Recognizing the profound need for greater patient and provider familiarity with personalized genomic medicine, many university instructors are including personalized genotyping as part of their curricula. During seminars and lectures students run polymerase chain reactions on their own DNA or evaluate their experiences using direct-to-consumer genetic testing services subsidized by the university. By testing for genes that may influence behavioral or health-related traits, however, such as alcohol tolerance and cancer susceptibility, certain universities have stirred debate on the ethical concerns raised by educational genotyping. Considering the potential for psychosocial harm and medically relevant outcomes, how far should university-facilitated DNA testing be permitted to go? The analysis here distinguishes among these learning initiatives and critiques their approaches to the ethical concerns raised by educational genotyping.

Obliging children.

Children may sometimes undergo healthcare procedures that are not intended to improve their health status. Such interventions might include the use of young children as bone marrow donors or their enrolment in non-therapeutic research. One of the justifications used to legitimise these interventions is the premise that children have obligations to others; to their family in the case of related bone marrow transplantation, and to wider society in the case of non-therapeutic research. However, this 'obligation model' (the notion that children possess positive obligations to advance the health status of others) fails as a justificatory paradigm because it is based upon a confusion, identified by Hart, between two notions; that of 'being under an obligation to do something' and that of 'being obliged to do something'. Instead the 'obligation model' is a device employed to put a justificatory gloss upon a consequentialist decision-making process; removing the legitimising gloss allows for a more transparent look at the conflict between parental rights and an individual child's right to bodily integrity.

Informed consent for research involving people with dementia: a grey area.

Research involving people with dementia has been flagged as a key priority by Alzheimer's International. Dementia has been an Australian National Health Priority since 2005, yet there are no clear guidelines for seeking and obtaining informed consent from people with dementia to participate in observational research. Informed consent is an ethical requirement for the conduct of research involving humans. Although many people with dementia are able to express a desire to be involved in research, the insidious progression of the disease reduces a person's ability to understand and appreciate the consequences of involvement. This paper explores the author's journey of seeking and obtaining informed consent for a mixed methods study which involved the observation of older people with dementia.

Making all the children above average: ethical and regulatory concerns for pediatricians in pediatric enhancement research.

Building on the knowledge generated by the long history of disease-oriented research, the next few decades will witness an explosion of biomedical enhancements to make people faster, stronger, smarter, less forgetful, happier, prettier, and live longer. Growing interest in pediatric enhancements is likely to stimulate the conduct of enhancement research involving children. However, guidelines for the protection of human subjects were developed for investigations of therapeutic modalities. To date, virtually no attention has been paid to whether these rules would be appropriate for investigations to establish the safety and efficacy of technologies intended for enhancement rather than therapeutic uses and, if not, whether ethically acceptable rules could be designed. This article discusses whether the current guidelines for pediatric research provide appropriate protections for pediatric subjects in enhancement research and considers what additional protections might be necessary.

Biospecimens, Research Consent, and Distinguishing Cell Line Research.

Newly revised regulations for human research affecting translational oncology will become effective in January 2019. A substantial component of the debate leading to this revision was how to regulate biospecimen research; specifically, whether all biospecimens should be considered inherently "identifiable," thereby necessitating informed consent for use in research. The famous cases seminal to this discussion involve cancer cell lines, but the unique features of this kind of biospecimen research were largely missing from the regulatory deliberation. However, special aspects of cell line research-at the stages of procurement, generation, evolution, and sharing-alter how society should balance participant interests against the goals of research. Recommendations are offered to cancer researchers and policymakers going forward to enable ethically appropriate regulation of biospecimen research across its diverse spectrum.

Rethinking risk in pediatric research.

This article reviews four areas of pediatric research in which we have identified questionable levels of allowable risk, exceeding those foreseen by the Commission. They are the following: (1) the categorization of increasingly risky interventions as minimal risk in a variety of protocols; (2) the increasing number of applications for federal panel review of research not otherwise approvable because of higher projected risk levels; (3) research on asymptomatic at risk children; and (4) the inclusion of children and adolescents in placebo-controlled trials for participants of all ages without performing subgroup analysis. While embracing the imperative to include children in research is an encouraging step towards providing the pediatric population with effective medical care and finally eradicating the therapeutic orphan, we must ensure that this research does not become overly permissive.

Determining risk in pediatric research with no prospect of direct benefit: time for a national consensus on the interpretation of federal regulations.

United States federal regulations for pediatric research with no prospect of direct benefit restrict institutional review board (IRB) approval to procedures presenting: 1) no more than "minimal risk" ( section sign 45CFR46.404); or 2) no more than a "minor increase over minimal risk" if the research is commensurate with the subjects' previous or expected experiences and intended to gain vitally important information about the child's disorder or condition ( section sign 45CFR46.406) (DHHS 2001). During the 25 years since their adoption, these regulations have helped IRBs balance subject protections with the pursuit of scientific knowledge to advance children's welfare. At the same time, inconsistency in IRB application of these regulations to pediatric protocols has been widespread, in part because of the ambiguity of the regulatory language. During the past decade, three federally-charged committees have addressed these ambiguities: 1) the National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee (NHRPAC) (Washington, DC), 2) the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Children (Washington, DC); and 3) the United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Advisory Committee for Human Research Protections (SACHRP) (Washington, DC). The committees have reached similar conclusions on interpretation of language within regulations section sign section sign 45CFR46.404 and 406; these conclusions are remarkably consistent with recent international recommendations and those of the original National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1977) report from which current regulations are based. Drawing on the committees' public reports, this article identifies the ethical issues posed by ambiguities in regulatory language, summarizes the committees' deliberations, and calls for a national consensus on recommended criteria.

Enrolling adolescents in HIV vaccine trials: reflections on legal complexities from South Africa.

BACKGROUND: South Africa is likely to be the first country in the world to host an adolescent HIV vaccine trial. Adolescents may be enrolled in late 2007. In the development and review of adolescent HIV vaccine trial protocols there are many complexities to consider, and much work to be done if these important trials are to become a reality. DISCUSSION: This article sets out essential requirements for the lawful conduct of adolescent research in South Africa including compliance with consent requirements, child protection laws, and processes for the ethical and regulatory approval of research. SUMMARY: This article outlines likely complexities for researchers and research ethics committees, including determining that trial interventions meet current risk standards for child research. Explicit recommendations are made for role-players in other jurisdictions who may also be planning such trials. This article concludes with concrete steps for implementing these important trials in South Africa and other jurisdictions, including planning for consent processes; delineating privacy rights; compiling information necessary for ethics committees to assess risks to child participants; training trial site staff to recognize when disclosures trig mandatory reporting response; networking among relevant ethics committees; and lobbying the National Regulatory Authority for guidance.

Pitfalls in non-therapeutic research in children.

Research has brought significant medical advances in modern times benefiting virtually all people. Children as a class should not be excluded from research studies. However, non-therapeutic research is potentially problematic in children because they must be afforded special protection from harm and exploitation by care-givers, researchers, and institutional review boards. An article in this month's journal provides an opportunity for a systematic analysis using the methodology provided by the United States Code of Federal Regulations. The research design of this particular study does not appear to stand up to the requirements of the Code.

Towards the development of ethical practices in paediatric clinical trials: the special position of the terminally ill child.

This article examines the emotive and vexing issue of the involvement of terminally children in paediatric clinical trials. Particular emphasis is placed on the participation of such children in Phase I clinical studies, as such studies do not yield any benefit to the individual child. It provides an historical overview of medical research involving children and examines the moral arguments surrounding the participation of children in clinical trials. The article examines the conflict between doctor-as-researcher and doctor-as-treater as well as the problems presented by proxy consent providers. The role played by the human research ethics committee in this area is examined, as is the regulatory framework established by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The article argues that the participation of terminally ill children in Phase I clinical trials is not morally repugnant provided that there is a total commitment to the protection of the child participant's well-being during the dying process. It is argued that the moral justification for such position derives from the utilitarian notion that participation in such studies aims to benefit future generations of ill children.

Pesticide testing on human subjects: weighing benefits and risks.

In the debate surrounding testing pesticides on human subjects, two distinct positions have emerged. The first position holds that pesticide experiments on human subjects should be allowed, but only under stringent scientific and ethical standards. The second position asserts that these experiments should never be allowed. In this article, we evaluate what we consider to be the strongest argument for the second position--namely, that the benefits of the experiments are not significant enough to justify the risks posed to healthy subjects. We challenge this argument by examining the benefits and risks of testing pesticides on human subjects. We argue that a study that intentionally exposes humans subjects to pesticides should be permitted if a) the knowledge gained from the study is expected to promote human health; b) the knowledge cannot be reasonably obtained by other means; c) the study is not expected to cause serious or irreversible harm to the subjects; and d) appropriate safeguards are in place to minimize harm to the subjects.