Virtue ethics and the unsettled ethical questions in controlled human infection studies.

Controlled human infection studies (CHIs) involve the intentional infection of human subjects for a scientific aim. Though some past challenge trials have involved serious ethical abuses, in the last few decades, CHIs have had a strong track record of safety. Despite increased attention to the ethics of CHIs during the COVID-19 pandemic, CHIs remain controversial, and there has been no in-depth treatment of CHIs through the lens of virtue ethics. In this article, we argue that virtue theory can be helpful for addressing CHIs that present a constellation of controversial, unresolved, and/or under-regulated ethical issues. We begin with some brief background on virtue ethics. We then substantiate our claim that some CHIs raise a constellation of ethical issues that are unresolved in the ethics literature and/or lack adequate regulatory guidance by demonstrating that CHIs can present indeterminate social value, risks to third parties, limitations on the right to withdraw from research, and questions about the upper limit of allowable risk. We argue that the presence of a virtuous investigator, with virtues such as prudence, compassion, and integrity, is especially important when these unresolved research ethics issues arise, which is the case for certain types of controlled human infection studies. We use the historical example of Walter Reed and the Yellow Fever Commission to illustrate this claim, and we also highlight some contemporary examples. We end by sketching some practical implications of our view, such as ensuring that investigators with experience running CHIs are involved in novel CHI models.

Putting placebo-controlled trials in developing countries to the interpersonal justifiability test.

This paper considers the ethics of placebo-controlled trials in developing countries, where a treatment already exists but is not available due to the low local standard of care. Such trials would not be permitted in more developed nations where a higher standard of care is available. I argue that there are moral intuitions against such trials, but a further intuition that if the trials were aimed at producing treatment options for the developing world, that would be more permissible than if the trials were designed with the benefit of rich world people in mind. An approach based upon GA Cohen's work on interpersonal justifiability is suggested to allow us to explain these intuitions. Cohen's framework shows that these trials are ethically problematic because the inequality in healthcare provision between developing and developed nations that allows them to take place is at least partly the pharmaceutical corporations' fault. Following Cohen's argument, this means the trials are non-comprehensively justified. This allows for a more complete explanation of our intuitions than to consider such trials as cases of exploitation, because intuitions on the ethicacy of research can vary even when the exploitation relation remains the same. It is then established that there is good empirical evidence to believe that pharmaceutical corporations do fail the interpersonal justifiability test. The policy implications of this judgement are then considered, and it is suggested that the framework might be equally applicable to examining the permissibility of research conducted on vulnerable people within more developed nations.

Non-commercial vs. commercial clinical trials: a retrospective study of the applications submitted to a research ethics committee.

There are many difficulties in undertaking independent clinical research without support from the pharmaceutical industry. In this retrospective observational study, some design characteristics, the clinical trial public register and the publication rate of noncommercial clinical trials were compared to those of commercial clinical trials. A total of 809 applications of drug-evaluation clinical trials were submitted from May 2004 to May 2009 to the research ethics committee of a tertiary hospital, and 16.3% of trials were noncommercial. They were mainly phase IV, multicentre national, and unmasked controlled trials, compared to the commercial trials that were mainly phase II or III, multicentre international, and double-blind masked trials. The commercial trials were registered and published more often than noncommercial trials. More funding for noncommercial research is still needed. The results of the research, commercial or noncommercial, should be disseminated in order not to compromise either its scientific or its social value.

Ethical principles and placebo-controlled trials - interpretation and implementation of the Declaration of Helsinki's placebo paragraph in medical research.

BACKGROUND: In October 2013, the Declaration of Helsinki was revised a seventh time in its 50 year history. While it is the most widely accepted set of ethical principles for the protection of patients participating in medical research, the Declaration of Helsinki has also been subject of constant controversy. In particular, its paragraph on the use of placebo controls in clinical trials divides the research community into active-control and placebo orthodox proponents, both continuously demanding revisions of the Declaration of Helsinki in favour of their position. The goal of the present project is to compare the mainly theoretical controversy with regulatory implementation. METHODS: We distributed a questionnaire to national drug regulatory authorities from different countries to collect information on the authorities' respective approaches to interpretation and implementation of the Declarations' placebo paragraph in the conduct of medical research. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that the majority of drug regulatory authorities have established a practice of a middle ground, allowing placebo controls in some instances. Various interpretations of "serious harm" and "methodological reasons" are proposed as well as safeguards to avoid abuse of the option to use placebo-controls. CONCLUSION: Leaving the placebo paragraph open to various interpretation is a result of the Declaration of Helsinki's character as a guidance document. With the current version controversy will continue. The Declaration should be continued to be strengthened to enforce the appreciation of conducting medical research with the highest ethical standard.

Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.

BACKGROUND: Improper practices and unprofessional conduct in clinical research have been shown to waste a significant portion of healthcare funds and harm public health. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of educational or policy interventions in research integrity or responsible conduct of research on the behaviour and attitudes of researchers in health and other research areas. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS and CINAHL health research bibliographical databases, as well as the Academic Search Complete, AGRICOLA, GeoRef, PsycINFO, ERIC, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. We performed the last search on 15 April 2015 and the search was limited to articles published between 1990 and 2014, inclusive. We also searched conference proceedings and abstracts from research integrity conferences and specialized websites. We handsearched 14 journals that regularly publish research integrity research. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that measured the effects of one or more interventions, i.e. any direct or indirect procedure that may have an impact on research integrity and responsible conduct of research in its broadest sense, where participants were any stakeholders in research and publication processes, from students to policy makers. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, such as controlled before-and-after studies, with comparisons of outcomes in the intervention versus non-intervention group or before versus after the intervention. Studies without a control group were not included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. To assess the risk of bias in non-randomized studies, we used a modified Cochrane tool, in which we used four out of six original domains (blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, other sources of bias) and two additional domains (comparability of groups and confounding factors). We categorized our primary outcome into the following levels: 1) organizational change attributable to intervention, 2) behavioural change, 3) acquisition of knowledge/skills and 4) modification of attitudes/perceptions. The secondary outcome was participants' reaction to the intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one studies involving 9571 participants, described in 33 articles, met the inclusion criteria. All were published in English. Fifteen studies were randomized controlled trials, nine were controlled before-and-after studies, four were non-equivalent controlled studies with a historical control, one was a non-equivalent controlled study with a post-test only and two were non-equivalent controlled studies with pre- and post-test findings for the intervention group and post-test for the control group. Twenty-one studies assessed the effects of interventions related to plagiarism and 10 studies assessed interventions in research integrity/ethics. Participants included undergraduates, postgraduates and academics from a range of research disciplines and countries, and the studies assessed different types of outcomes.We judged most of the included randomized controlled trials to have a high risk of bias in at least one of the assessed domains, and in the case of non-randomized trials there were no attempts to alleviate the potential biases inherent in the non-randomized designs.We identified a range of interventions aimed at reducing research misconduct. Most interventions involved some kind of training, but methods and content varied greatly and included face-to-face and online lectures, interactive online modules, discussion groups, homework and practical exercises. Most studies did not use standardized or validated outcome measures and it was impossible to synthesize findings from studies with such diverse interventions, outcomes and participants. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that various methods of training in research integrity had some effects on participants' attitudes to ethical issues but minimal (or short-lived) effects on their knowledge. Training about plagiarism and paraphrasing had varying effects on participants' attitudes towards plagiarism and their confidence in avoiding it, but training that included practical exercises appeared to be more effective. Training on plagiarism had inconsistent effects on participants' knowledge about and ability to recognize plagiarism. Active training, particularly if it involved practical exercises or use of text-matching software, generally decreased the occurrence of plagiarism although results were not consistent. The design of a journal's author contribution form affected the truthfulness of information supplied about individuals' contributions and the proportion of listed contributors who met authorship criteria. We identified no studies testing interventions for outcomes at the organizational level. The numbers of events and the magnitude of intervention effects were generally small, so the evidence is likely to be imprecise. No adverse effects were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base relating to interventions to improve research integrity is incomplete and the studies that have been done are heterogeneous, inappropriate for meta-analyses and their applicability to other settings and population is uncertain. Many studies had a high risk of bias because of the choice of study design and interventions were often inadequately reported. Even when randomized designs were used, findings were difficult to generalize. Due to the very low quality of evidence, the effects of training in responsible conduct of research on reducing research misconduct are uncertain. Low quality evidence indicates that training about plagiarism, especially if it involves practical exercises and use of text-matching software, may reduce the occurrence of plagiarism.

Ethical Overview of Placebo Control in Psychiatric Research - Concepts and Challenges.

Permissibility of placebo controls in psychiatric research is raising everlasting controversies. The main ethical issue remains: whether, when, under what conditions, and to what extent is it justifiable to disregard subject's present (best) interest for the presumably "greater" ones. In relation to this main ethical concern, two distinct arguments arose: proponents of placebo controls trials (placebo ortxodoxy) and proponents of active controls trials (active-control orthodoxy). More recently, in new ethical guidelines, Declaration of Helsinki and International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, a "middle way" approach was formulated, acceptable to both sides of the argument, saying placebo controls can be justified under certain conditions: when and only when, they firstly present undisputed methodological reasoning, and secondly, fulfill certain ethical considerations - mainly regarding the permissibility of accompanied risks. These ethical evaluations are inevitably contextual and evoke the need for the principle of proportionality. In scope of recent findings of substantial and progressively increasing placebo response in psychiatric research, contextual factors are identified and both theoretical and practical challenges are discussed.

Clinical research before informed consent.

Clinical research with patient-subjects was routinely conducted without informed consent for research participation prior to 1966. The aim of this article is to illuminate the moral climate of clinical research at this time, with particular attention to placebo-controlled trials in which patient-subjects often were not informed that they were participating in research or that they might receive a placebo intervention rather than standard medical treatment or an experimental treatment for their condition. An especially valuable window into the thinking of clinical investigators about their relationship with patient-subjects in the era before informed consent is afforded by reflection on two articles published by psychiatric researchers in 1966 and 1967, at the point of transition between clinical research conducted under the guise of medical care and clinical research based on consent following an invitation to participate and disclosure of material information about the study. Historical inquiry relating to the practice of clinical research without informed consent helps to put into perspective the moral progress associated with soliciting consent following disclosure of pertinent information; it also helps to shed light on an important issue in contemporary research ethics: the conditions under which it is ethical to conduct clinical research without informed consent.

The potential benefit of the placebo effect in sham-controlled trials: implications for risk-benefit assessments and informed consent.

There has been considerable debate surrounding the ethics of sham-controlled trials of procedures and interventions. Critics argue that these trials are unethical because participants assigned to the control group have no prospect of benefit from the trial, yet they are exposed to all the risks of the sham intervention. However, the placebo effect associated with sham procedures can often be substantial and has been well documented in the scientific literature. We argue that, in light of the scientific evidence supporting the benefits of sham interventions for pain and Parkinson's disease that stem from the placebo effect, these sham-controlled trials should be considered as offering potential direct benefit to participants. If scientific evidence demonstrates the positive effect of placebo from sham interventions on other conditions, sham-controlled trials of interventions for the treatment of these conditions should be considered to have prospects of benefit as well. This potential benefit should be taken into account by research ethics committees in risk-benefit analyses, and be included in informed consent documents.

Ethical tradeoffs in trial design: case study of an HPV vaccine trial in HIV-infected adolescent girls in lower income settings.

The Declaration of Helsinki and the Council of the International Organization of Medical Sciences provide guidance on standards of care and prevention in clinical trials. In the current and increasingly challenging research environment, the ethical status of a trial design depends not only on protection of participants, but also on social value, feasibility, and scientific validity. Using the example of a study assessing efficacy of a vaccine to prevent human papilloma virus in HIV-1 infected adolescent girls in low resource countries without access to the vaccine, we compare several trial designs which rank lower on some criteria and higher on others, giving rise to difficult trade-offs. This case demonstrates the need for developing more nuanced guidance documents to help researchers balance these often conflicting criteria.

Ethical considerations in conducting pediatric research.

The critical need for pediatric research on drugs and biological products underscores the responsibility to ensure that children are enrolled in clinical research that is both scientifically necessary and ethically sound. In this chapter, we review key ethical considerations concerning the participation of children in clinical research. We propose a basic ethical framework to guide pediatric research, and suggest how this framework might be operationalized in linking science and ethics. Topics examined include: the status of children as a vulnerable population; the appropriate balance of risk and potential benefit in research; ethical considerations underlying study design, including clinical equipoise, placebo controls, and non-inferiority designs; the use of data monitoring committees; compensation; and parental permission and child assent to participate in research. We incorporate selected national (USA) and international guidelines, as well as regulatory approaches to pediatric studies that have been adopted in the USA, Canada, and Europe.

What it takes to defend deceptive placebo use.

A complete defense of deceptive placebo use must address this ethical objection: deceptive placebo use violates patient autonomy, because deceiving a patient about the placebo nature of a proposed treatment prevents her from giving informed consent to the treatment. Unfortunately, this objection isn't always recognized and clearly disambiguated from other ethical concerns. I consider how well several bioethicists who write about placebo use have responded to, or evaded, this objection. I conclude that defenders of deceptive placebo use should, following the lead of Onora O'Neill, argue that deceptive placebo use is compatible with informed consent.

Because we can: clashes of perspective over researcher obligation in the failed PrEP trials.

This article examines the relationship between bioethics and the therapeutic standards in HIV prevention research in the developing world, focusing on the closure of the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) trials in the early 2000s. I situate the PrEP trials in the historical context of the vertical transmission debates of the 1990s, where there was protracted debate over the use of placebos despite the existence of a proven intervention. I then discuss the dramatic improvement in the clinical management of HIV and the treatment access movement, and consider how these contexts have influenced research practice. I argue that as HIV prevention trials oblige researchers to observe the rate at which vulnerable people under their care acquire HIV, there is an obligation to provide antiretroviral treatment to seroconverters and other health care benefits that fall within the scope of researchers' entrustment, both to avoid exploitation and to enact reciprocal justice. I argue against propositions that the obligations to provide specific benefits are vague, fall only upon researchers and sponsors, and create injustices by privileging the few over the many. Finally, I contend that the realisation of a broader standard of care in HIV prevention research broadens the role of research from being a simple tool to produce knowledge to a complex intervention that can play a part in the reduction of health disparities.

Giving and taking: ethical treatment assignment in controlled trials.

The current version of the Declaration of Helsinki states that 'the benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new intervention must be tested against those of the best current proven intervention(s) … '. This wording implies that it is acceptable for patients to be assigned to receive an unproven new intervention and to be denied a best current proven intervention. We assert that patients being invited to participate in controlled trials cannot, ethically, be expected to forego proven beneficial forms of care. Patients being treated in controlled trials should not knowingly be disadvantaged compared with similar patients being treated in usual clinical care, where they have access to beneficial care. In this article, we have tried to separate for discussion 'the withholding of effective care from trial participants', 'informed consent to treatment', 'blinding' and 'use of placebos'.

Questioning the methodologic superiority of 'placebo' over 'active' controlled trials.

A resilient issue in research ethics is whether and when a placebo-controlled trial (PCT) is justified if it deprives research subjects of a recognized treatment. The clinicians' moral duty to provide the best available care seems to require the use of 'active' controlled trials (ACTs) that use an established treatment as a control whenever such a therapy is available. In another regard, ACTs are supposedly methodologically inferior to PCTs. Hence, the moral duty of the clinical researcher to use the best methods will favor PCTs. In this target article, I analyze the three reasons for believing that ACTs are inferior to PCTs namely: 1) ACTs lack 'assay sensitivity'; 2) ACTs do not measure absolute effect size; and 3) ACTs require more participants; and I contend that none are acceptable. Consequently the tension between clinical and research ethics dissolves: the moral duty of the clinician to avoid PCTs is unopposed by methodological considerations.

[Methodological problems of controlled clinical trials in surgical subspecialties]. / A mutéti szakmákban folytatott kontrollcsoportos klinikai vizsgálatok metodikai problémái.

Surgical subspecialties are handicapped in classical drug development considering professional and ethical solutions to questions in relation to introduction of new methods. The experts of invasive procedures are challenged significantly to comply with evidence based medicine and answer questions of the national health fund and/or health insurance companies, which are responsible for resource allocation. Sham operation is one of the ways to carry out controlled clinical trials. It had been pursued less frequently in the past, but we can see it as an important tool of invasive clinical trials nowadays. The contemplation about the applicability of sham operation contributes to understand other important issues in the development of invasive procedures.

Evidence-Based Evaluation of the Ethics of Sham Surgery for Parkinson's Disease.

The stated purpose of sham or placebo surgery is to enable the implementation of surgical placebo-controlled trials (SPTs) for evaluating the safety and efficacy of surgical interventions. Exposing the participants to the burdens and harms of sham surgery has been justified on the grounds of the absolute necessity for controlling large placebo effects and observer bias, assumed to be associated with surgical procedures. In the present review, we argue that evidence obtained from SPTs of cellular therapies for the treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) has failed to demonstrate either large and consistent placebo effects or decisive methodological advantages for relying on sham surgical controls. We outline several alternative assessment strategies and designs available to establish the efficacy of cellular therapies. It is concluded that the evidence evaluated in the present analysis indicated that use of sham surgery in the context of developing novel surgical procedures for PD is not necessary, and therefore, unethical under a utilitarian model.