Digital contact tracing and exposure notification: ethical guidance for trustworthy pandemic management.

There is growing interest in contact tracing apps (CT apps) for pandemic management. It is crucial to consider ethical requirements before, while, and after implementing such apps. In this paper, we illustrate the complexity and multiplicity of the ethical considerations by presenting an ethical framework for a responsible design and implementation of CT apps. Using this framework as a starting point, we briefly highlight the interconnection of social and political contexts, available measures of pandemic management, and a multi-layer assessment of CT apps. We will discuss some trade-offs that arise from this perspective. We then suggest that public trust is of major importance for population uptake of contact tracing apps. Hasty, ill-prepared or badly communicated implementations of CT apps will likely undermine public trust, and as such, risk impeding general effectiveness.

Applying a Precautionary Approach to Mobile Contact Tracing for COVID-19: The Value of Reversibility.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents unprecedented challenges to public health decision-making. Specifically, the lack of evidence and the urgency with which a response is called for, raise the ethical challenge of assessing how much (and what kind of) evidence is required for the justification of interventions in response to the various threats we face. Here we discuss the intervention of introducing technology that aims to trace and alert contacts of infected persons-contact tracing (CT) technology. Determining whether such an intervention is proportional is complicated by complex trade-offs and feedback loops. We suggest that the resulting uncertainties necessitate a precautionary approach. On the one hand, precautionary reasons support CT technology as a means to contribute to the prevention of harms caused by alternative interventions, or COVID-19 itself. On the other hand, however, both the extent to which such technology itself present risks of serious harm, as well as its effectiveness, remain unclear. We therefore argue that a precautionary approach should put reversibility of CT technology at the forefront. We outline several practical implications.

Screening for multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: what is effective and justifiable?

Effectiveness is a key criterion in assessing the justification of antibiotic resistance interventions. Depending on an intervention's effectiveness, burdens and costs will be more or less justified, which is especially important for large scale population-level interventions with high running costs and pronounced risks to individuals in terms of wellbeing, integrity and autonomy. In this paper, we assess the case of routine hospital screening for multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDRGN) from this perspective. Utilizing a comparison to screening programs for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) we argue that current screening programmes for MDRGN in low endemic settings should be reconsidered, as its effectiveness is in doubt, while general downsides to screening programs remain. To accomplish justifiable antibiotic stewardship, MDRGN screening should not be viewed as a separate measure, but rather as part of a comprehensive approach. The program should be redesigned to focus on those at risk of developing symptomatic infections with MDRGN rather than merely detecting those colonised.

Correction to: Managing pollution from antibiotics manufacturing: charting actors, incentives and disincentives.

Following publication of the original article [1], the author explained that there are multiple errors in the original article.

Managing pollution from antibiotics manufacturing: charting actors, incentives and disincentives.

BACKGROUND: Emissions of high concentrations of antibiotics from manufacturing sites select for resistant bacteria and may contribute to the emergence of new forms of resistance in pathogens. Many scientists, industry, policy makers and other stakeholders recognize such pollution as an unnecessary and unacceptable risk to global public health. An attempt to assess and reduce such discharges, however, quickly meets with complex realities that need to be understood to identify effective ways to move forward. This paper charts relevant key actor-types, their main stakes and interests, incentives that can motivate them to act to improve the situation, as well as disincentives that may undermine such motivation. METHODS: The actor types and their respective interests have been identified using research literature, publicly available documents, websites, and the knowledge of the authors. RESULTS: Thirty-three different actor-types were identified, representing e.g. commercial actors, public agencies, states and international institutions. These are in complex ways connected by interests that sometimes may conflict and sometimes pull in the same direction. Some actor types can act to create incentives and disincentives for others in this area. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis demonstrates and clarifies the challenges in addressing industrial emissions of antibiotics, notably the complexity of the relations between different types of actors, their international dependency and the need for transparency. The analysis however also suggests possible ways of initiating incentive-chains to eventually improve the prospects of motivating industry to reduce emissions. High-resource consumer states, especially in multinational cooperation, hold a key position to initiate such chains.

Cutting red tape to manage public health threats: An ethical dilemma of expediting antibiotic drug innovation.

Antibiotic resistance, arising when bacteria develop defences against antibiotics, is creating a public health threat of massive proportions. This raises challenging questions for standard notions in bioethics when suitable policy is to be characterized and justified. We examine the particular proposal of expediting innovation of new antibiotics by cutting various forms of regulatory 'red tape' in the standard system for the clinical introduction of new drugs. We find strong principled reasons in favour of such a lowering of the ethical standards of research and the clinical introduction of new antibiotic formulas. However, this support is undermined by pragmatic challenges owing to expected responses from stakeholders, creating uncertainty about which policies could actually be effectively implemented. We describe an underlying dilemma on how to rationally justify compromises between ideal ethical justification and pragmatic risks that needs to be further addressed in this light. We suggest a solution to this dilemma related to proposals of expediting antibiotic drug innovation.

Health-related Research Ethics and Social Value: Antibiotic Resistance Intervention Research and Pragmatic Risks.

We consider the implications for the ethical evaluation of research programs of two fundamental changes in the revised research ethical guideline of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. The first is the extension of scope that follows from exchanging "biomedical" for "health-related" research, and the second is the new evaluative basis of "social value," which implies new ethical requirements of research. We use the example of antibiotic resistance interventions to explore the need to consider the instances of what we term the pragmatic risks of such interventions to evaluate the social value of certain kinds of health-related research. These (pragmatic) risks severely threaten the social value of interventions in every area where human and social responses significantly impact on their effectiveness. Thus, the social value of health-related research needed to demonstrate its effectiveness depends on the extent and successful management of such risks. Research designed to take into account the management of pragmatic risks also gives rise to similar types of risks, and the potential for social value in light of those risks needs to be considered in ethical reviews based on the new guidelines. We argue that, to handle this new expanded task, the international system of research ethical review addressed by the guidelines needs institutional development.

Epistemic architecture: steering the public perception of the messy problem of antibiotic resistance.

In this perspective, we discuss non-experts' beliefs about the complex and 'messy' problem of antibiotic resistance (ABR). First, we explain what we mean by complex and messy problems and why ABR fits that description. We then suggest that the attitudes of non-experts are particularly relevant to these problems. This gives rise to social epistemic risks; risks that involve the collective and social aspects of the formation of epistemic attitudes. Steering these epistemic attitudes as a way of handling these risks can take the form of creating what we call 'epistemic architecture'. That is, a planned design of the structure within which the formation of epistemic attitudes takes place. This entails risks of its own, which leads us to conclude that there is an important responsibility for experts to take these social epistemic risks into account when communicating on messy problems, such as ABR.

Consent to epistemic interventions: a contribution to the debate on the right (not) to know.

The debate on the 'right (not) to know' has simmered on for over 30 years. New examples where a right to be informed is contrasted to a right to be kept in ignorance occasionally surface and spark disagreement on the extent to which patients and research subjects have a right to be self-determining concerning the health related information they receive. Up until now, however, this debate has been unsatisfactory with regard to the question what type of rights-if any-are in play here and to what extent they can provide a normative basis for informed consent. This paper provides an analysis of informed consent in the context of 'epistemic interventions': interventions which involve the communication of (health-related) information. First, I offer an analysis of the concept of a 'right not to know' in the context of consent to epistemic interventions. I argue that the scope of the consent is determined by the extent to which this intervention can be seen as an infringement of the private sphere. After that I show how this analysis affects the scope and standards of informed consent.

The new genetics and informed consent: differentiating choice to preserve autonomy.

The advent of new genetic and genomic technologies may cause friction with the principle of respect for autonomy and demands a rethinking of traditional interpretations of the concept of informed consent. Technologies such as whole-genome sequencing and micro-array based analysis enable genome-wide testing for many heterogeneous abnormalities and predispositions simultaneously. This may challenge the feasibility of providing adequate pre-test information and achieving autonomous decision-making. At a symposium held at the 11th World Congress of Bioethics in June 2012 (Rotterdam), organized by the International Association of Bioethics, these challenges were presented for three different areas in which these so-called 'new genetics' technologies are increasingly being applied: newborn screening, prenatal screening strategies and commercial personal genome testing. In this article, we build upon the existing ethical framework for a responsible set-up of testing and screening offers and reinterpret some of its criteria in the light of the new genetics. As we will argue, the scope of a responsible testing or screening offer should align with the purpose(s) of testing and with the principle of respect for autonomy for all stakeholders involved, including (future) children. Informed consent is a prerequisite but requires a new approach. We present preliminary and general directions for an individualized or differentiated set-up of the testing offer and for the informed consent process. With this article we wish to contribute to the formation of new ideas on how to tackle the issues of autonomy and informed consent for (public) healthcare and direct-to-consumer applications of the new genetics.

The changing landscape of genetic testing and its impact on clinical and laboratory services and research in Europe.

The arrival of new genetic technologies that allow efficient examination of the whole human genome (microarray, next-generation sequencing) will impact upon both laboratories (cytogenetic and molecular genetics in the first instance) and clinical/medical genetic services. The interpretation of analytical results in terms of their clinical relevance and the predicted health status poses a challenge to both laboratory and clinical geneticists, due to the wealth and complexity of the information obtained. There is a need to discuss how to best restructure the genetic services logistically and to determine the clinical utility of genetic testing so that patients can receive appropriate advice and genetic testing. To weigh up the questions and challenges of the new genetic technologies, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) held a series of workshops on 10 June 2010 in Gothenburg. This was part of an ESHG satellite symposium on the 'Changing landscape of genetic testing', co-organized by the ESHG Genetic Services Quality and Public and Professional Policy Committees. The audience consisted of a mix of geneticists, ethicists, social scientists and lawyers. In this paper, we summarize the discussions during the workshops and present some of the identified ways forward to improve and adapt the genetic services so that patients receive accurate and relevant information. This paper covers ethics, clinical utility, primary care, genetic services and the blurring boundaries between healthcare and research.

Parental Opinions about the Expansion of the Neonatal Screening Programme.

BACKGROUND: Advances in genomics will open up opportunities in the fields of genetic testing, early diagnosis and disease treatment. While neonatal screening is the field of application par excellencefor these developments, the debate on its potential benefits and drawbacks is mainly theoretically driven and based on the opinions of professionals. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of the perceptions, preferences and needs of parents (and parents to be) with respect to expansion of the neonatal screening programme. Seven focus group discussions were conducted. Using disease scenarios, 4 examples of conditions amenable to neonatal screening were discussed in depth. All focus group discussions were audio taped and content analysed. RESULTS: Participants thought that the medical benefits of screening were very important for the child. Assuming the availability of effective early medical treatment, almost 100% would be willing to participate in a screening programme. If such treatment were absent, their potential willingness would be much lower. CONCLUSIONS: The divergence in attitudes and preferences we found in this study reflected the complexity inherent in any consideration of screening for additional conditions. To implement such options successfully and to direct applied research in genomics, it is important to develop a better understanding of the thinking of target groups, namely parents.

Information and informed consent for neonatal screening: opinions and preferences of parents.

BACKGROUND: The current neonatal screening program ("the heel prick") involves taking a few drops of blood from almost every newborn in the Netherlands to determine whether the child is suffering from one of three congenital disorders: phenylketonuria, congenital hypothyroid, or adrenogenital syndrome. This study investigated the preferences and views of parents and future parents with respect to information about, and consent to, neonatal screening and the possible expansion of the program. METHODS: Seven focus group discussions took place with future parents, parents with a healthy child, and parents with children affected by disorders for which screening is possible, now or in the future (total of 36 participants). The discussions were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed for content. RESULTS: Parents were not well informed about what the heel prick involves at present. Nevertheless, they see it as a routine procedure and do not think about the possibility of refusing it. If the heel-prick program were to be expanded, parents would like to be informed earlier, preferably during pregnancy. In addition, most parents preferred an opt-out consent approach. CONCLUSIONS: If the neonatal screening program is to be expanded, parents would prefer for information about the program be given during pregnancy. In addition, they preferred an opt-out consent approach, on condition that screening was for the purpose of preventing irreversible harm. Parental opinion was divided on this issue if the aim of screening were to be widened.