Ethical Considerations for Enrolling "Invested Parties" in Large-Scale Clinical Studies: Insights from the RECOVER Initiative.

Research institutions often lack policies addressing the risks and benefits of enrolling "invested parties" such as investigators, research staff, and patient, caregiver, and community representatives (groups most affected by a disease or intervention) in studies where they have direct involvement. Invested parties may have both strong motivations to study the condition or intervention and to participate as study subjects. More guidance is needed to promote appropriate access to research participation and mitigate potential risks. This article addresses the gap in guidance by presenting an ethical framework and practical guidelines for the enrollment of invested parties. Drawing from experiences with the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a large multisite observational cohort study, we argue that invested parties should not be categorically excluded from enrollment in their own research studies if certain criteria are met and appropriate safeguards are in place. We underscore the need to balance inclusion with fairness, promote valid voluntary informed consent, ensure data privacy, protect scientific validity, and mitigate unique risks to invested parties as participants. Additionally, we recommend regular reporting and empirical assessment to evaluate the impact of enrolling invested parties on participants and study outcomes.

How Should Clinician-Researchers Model Regard for Nonhuman Animals Bred for and Used in Human-Centered Science?

If we assume that nonhuman animals experience pain or distress, then ethically justifying human-centered research with only nonhuman animals as subjects likely requires that the research's benefits to humans must, at least, outweigh harms suffered by the nonhuman animals. Yet this reasoning does not seem to account well for the ethical view that nonhuman animals are morally valuable in their own right. This commentary on a case considers this ethical tension and discusses how clinician-researchers should navigate it. This commentary also suggests why clinician-researchers' reasoning about the nature and scope of their obligations to nonhuman animals extends beyond governing regulations and federal oversight, which is silent on or ambiguous about nonhuman animals as morally valuable in their own right.

Cross-National Variations in Scientific Ethics: Exploring Ethical Perspectives Among Scientists in China, the US, and the UK.

This research explores the perspectives of academic physicists from three national contexts concerning their roles and responsibilities within the realm of science. Using a dataset comprised of 211 interviews with scientists working in China, the United States, and the United Kingdom, the study seeks to explain whether and in what manner physicists conceptualize scientific ethics within a global or national framework. The empirical findings bring to light disparities across nations in the physicists' perceptions of what constitutes responsible mentorship and engagement in public service. These cross-national variations underscore the moral agency of physicists as they navigate the ethical standards embraced by the global scientific community vis-à-vis those that are specific to their respective national contexts. The study's empirical insights may carry significant implications for both policymakers and ethicists, underscoring the imperative of soliciting and acknowledging the perspectives of academic scientists working and living in disparate national contexts when formulating comprehensive science ethics frameworks. Such inclusive and context-aware approaches to shaping ethics in science can contribute to the cultivation of a more robust and universally relevant ethical foundation for the scientific community.

Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable.

Coercion authorship (CA), typically enforced by principal investigators, has detrimental effects on graduate students, young researchers, and the entire scientific endeavor. Although CA is ubiquitous, its occurrence and major determinants have been mainly explored among graduate students and junior scientists in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the ratio of CA ranged from 13 to 40%. In addition to lacking comparable figures, developing countries usually lack institutional plans for promoting integrity and effective deterrents against CA and other malpractices. Hence, universities and research centers therein must publish their authorship policies and implement specific strategies to instruct graduate students, junior scientists, and experienced researchers on integrity, publishing ethics, and responsible authorship. Finally, I remark that the primary responsibility of principal researchers to promote fair authorship practices and discourage unfair ones is even greater when it comes to CA due to the asymmetrical power relationship between senior authors and novice scientists.

Generalisable Overview of Study Risk for Lead Investigators Needing Guidance (GOSLING): A data governance risk tool.

INTRODUCTION: Digitisation of patient records, coupled with a moral imperative to use routinely collected data for research, necessitate effective data governance that both facilitates evidence-based research and minimises associated risks. The Generalisable Overview of Study Risk for Lead Investigators Needing Guidance (GOSLING) provides the first quantitative risk-measure for assessing the data-related risks of clinical research projects. METHODS: GOSLING employs a self-assessment designed to standardise risk assessment, considering various domains, including data type, security measures, and public co-production. The tool categorises projects into low, medium, and high-risk tiers based on a scoring system developed with the input of patient and public members. It was validated using both real and synthesised project proposals to ensure its effectiveness at triaging the risk of requests for health data. RESULTS: The tool effectively distinguished between fifteen low, medium, and high-risk projects in testing, aligning with subjective expert assessments. An interactive interface and an open-access policy for the tool encourage researchers to self-evaluate and mitigate risks prior to submission for data governance review. Initial testing demonstrated its potential to streamline the review process by identifying projects that may require less scrutiny or those that pose significant risks. DISCUSSION: GOSLING represents the first quantitative approach to measuring study risk, answering calls for standardised risk assessments in using health data for research. Its implementation could contribute to advancing ethical data use, enhancing research transparency, and promoting public trust. Future work will focus on expanding its applicability and exploring its impact on research efficiency and data governance practices.

Behind the scenes of research ethics committee oversight: a qualitative research study with committee chairs in the Middle East and North Africa region.

BACKGROUND: Research cites shortcomings and challenges facing research ethics committees in many regions across the world including Arab countries. This paper presents findings from qualitative in-depth interviews with research ethics committee (REC) chairs to explore their views on the challenges they face in their work with the oversight of research involving human populations. METHODS: Virtual in-depth interviews were conducted with chairs (n = 11) from both biomedical and/or social-behavioral research ethics committees in six countries, transcribed, coded and subject to thematic analysis for recurring themes. RESULTS: Two sets of recurring themes impede the work of the committees and pose concerns for the quality of the research applications: (1) procedures and committee level challenges such as heavy workload, variations in member qualification, impeding bureaucratic procedures, member overwork, and intersecting socio-cultural values in the review process; (2) inconsistencies in the researchers' competence in both applied research ethics and research methodology as revealed by their applications. CONCLUSIONS: Narratives of REC chairs are important to shed light on experiences and issues that are not captured in surveys, adding to the body of knowledge with implications for the region, and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in other parts of the world. International research collaborations could benefit from the findings.

Ethical clearance paper as a bottleneck.

The significance of the ethical review process in human-based research undertakings cannot be overemphasized as it is necessary to uphold ethical standards and protect participants. However, the review process per se can act as a bottleneck, potentially hindering research progress and leading to academic dishonesty. The present work explores the benefits and challenges of ethical review, emphasizing issues like intellectual theft, forced authorship, and the stifling of independent researchers. Proposed solutions include leveraging previously approved designs, empowering experienced professors for clearance, establishing panels of researchers, creating voluntary ethical approval offices, utilizing private consultancy offices, and establishing a transnational ethical clearance authority. In conclusion, this work stresses the importance of finding mechanisms to streamline the ethical review process while maintaining ethical standards to foster integrity in research and combat academic dishonesty.

Ethical and Epistemological Implications of Conducting Ethnographic Fieldwork as a Researcher-cum-Clinician in Brussels, Belgium.

We draw on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Brussels (Belgium) on the health care experiences of undocumented migrants. We explore the implications of the double position of the ethnographer, who is both a researcher and a practicing doctor. We describe how the intimate knowledge the ethnographer-cum-clinician holds about the health care system influenced and shaped the data collection, analysis and subsequent policy recommendations. We examine the ethical dilemmas in conducting research from an engaged position about care practices toward vulnerable populations in one's own professional field. We conclude with recommendations on how to challenge and interrupt complexities faced by multi-positioned ethnographers.

Team Factors in Ethical Decision Making: A Content Analysis of Interviews with Scientists and Engineers.

The ethical decision making of researchers has historically been studied from an individualistic perspective. However, researchers rarely work alone, and they typically experience ethical dilemmas in a team context. In this mixed-methods study, 67 scientists and engineers working at a public R1 (very high research activity) university in the United States responded to a survey that asked whether they had experienced or observed an ethical dilemma while working in a research team. Among these, 30 respondents agreed to be interviewed about their experiences using a think-aloud protocol. A total of 40 unique ethical incidents were collected across these interviews. Qualitative data from interview transcripts were then systematically content-analyzed by multiple independent judges to quantify the overall ethicality of team decisions as well as several team characteristics, decision processes, and situational factors. The results demonstrated that team formalistic orientation, ethical championing, and the use of ethical decision strategies were all positively related to the overall ethicality of team decisions. Additionally, the relationship between ethical championing and overall team decision ethicality was moderated by psychological safety and moral intensity. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Responsibility for the Environmental Impact of Data-Intensive Research: An Exploration of UK Health Researchers.

Concerns about research's environmental impacts have been articulated in the research arena, but questions remain about what types of role responsibilities are appropriate to place on researchers, if any. The research question of this paper is: what are the views of UK health researchers who use data-intensive methods on their responsibilities to consider the environmental impacts of their research? Twenty-six interviews were conducted with UK health researchers using data-intensive methods. Participants expressed a desire to take responsibility for the environmental impacts of their research, however, they were unable to consolidate this because there were often obstacles that prevented them from taking such role responsibilities. They suggested strategies to address this, predominantly related to the need for regulation to monitor their own behaviour. This paper discusses the implications of adopting such a regulatory approach as a mechanism to promote researchers' role responsibilities using a neo-liberal critique.

Research Ethics of Involving Adolescents in Health Research Studies: Perspectives From Australia.

PURPOSE: Adolescent participation in health research studies is critical yet complex given the lack of clarity around issues such as consent. This study aimed to understand how those conducting research in Australia navigate research ethics in health research involving adolescents, through qualitative interviews. METHODS: Purposive sampling was used to recruit 23 researchers involved in adolescent health research using semi-structured in-depth interviews. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and audio-recorded after obtaining informed consent. Thematic analysis was used to construct themes and data were organised using NVivo. RESULTS: Two contrasting positions emerged from the data: (1) framing of adolescents as inherently vulnerable, their participation in research understood in terms of risk and protection and (2) adolescent engagement in research is understood in terms of empowerment, emphasising their capacity to make decisions about research participation. We traced these positions through three key themes, particularly in relation to the role of ethics committees: (1) competing positions as a result of inferior or superior knowledge about adolescent lives, (2) competing positions resulting in a risk averse or an empowerment approach, and (3) reflections on processes of obtaining consent which involves gatekeeping and tokenism. DISCUSSION: Our study highlights the contentious topic of navigating ethics committee requirements for the needs of adolescents. Majority of participants felt the current research ethics establishment is not favourable for researchers or adolescents themselves. While it is imperative that perceptions of ethics committees also be studied in the future, our study provides preliminary understanding of how experiences and perceptions shape how researchers interact with the research ethics establishment.

Perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research.

BACKGROUND: Genetic research can yield information that is unrelated to the study's objectives but may be of clinical or personal interest to study participants. There is an emerging but controversial responsibility to return some genetic research results, however there is little evidence available about the views of genomic researchers and others on the African continent. METHODS: We conducted a continental survey to solicit perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research. RESULTS: A total of 110 persons participated in the survey with 51 complete and 59 incomplete surveys received. Data was summarised using descriptive analysis. Overall, our respondents believed that individual genetic research results that are clinically actionable should be returned to study participants apparently because participants have a right to know things about their health, and it might also be a means for research participation to be recognized. Nonetheless, there is a need for development of precise guidance on how to return individual genetic research findings in African genomics research. DISCUSSION: Participants should receive information that could promote a healthier lifestyle; only clinically actionable findings should be returned, and participants should receive all important information that is directly relevant to their health. Nevertheless, detailed guidelines should inform what ought to be returned. H3Africa guidelines stipulate that it is generally considered good practice for researchers to feedback general study results, but there is no consensus about whether individual genomic study results should also be fed back. The decision on what individual results to feedback, if any, is very challenging and the specific context is important to make an appropriate determination.

Rationale and Study Checklist for Ethical Rejection of Participants on Crowdsourcing Research Platforms.

Online participant recruitment ("crowdsourcing") platforms are increasingly being used for research studies. While such platforms can rapidly provide access to large samples, there are concomitant concerns around data quality. Researchers have studied and demonstrated means to reduce the prevalence of low-quality data from crowdsourcing platforms, but approaches to doing so often involve rejecting work and/or denying payment to participants, which can pose ethical dilemmas. We write this essay as an associate professor and two institutional review board (IRB) directors to provide a perspective on the competing interests of participants/workers and researchers and to propose a checklist of steps that we believe may support workers' agency on the platform and lessen instances of unfair consequences to them while enabling researchers to definitively reject lower-quality work that might otherwise reduce the likelihood of their studies producing true results. We encourage further, explicit discussion of these issues among academics and among IRBs.

Prioritization of ethical concerns regarding HIV molecular epidemiology by public health practitioners and researchers.

BACKGROUND: HIV molecular epidemiology (HIV ME) can support the early detection of emerging clusters of new HIV infections by combining HIV sequence data routinely obtained during the clinical treatment of people living with HIV with behavioral, geographic, and sociodemographic information. While information about emerging clusters promises to facilitate HIV prevention and treatment efforts, the use of this data also raises several ethical concerns. We sought to assess how those working on the frontlines of HIV ME, specifically public health practitioners (PHPs) and researchers, prioritized these issues. METHODS: Ethical issues were identified through literature review, qualitative in-depth interviews, and stakeholder engagement. PHPs and researchers using HIV ME prioritized the issues using best-worst scaling (BWS). A balanced incomplete block design was used to generate 11 choice tasks each consisting of a sub-set of 5 ethical concerns. In each task, respondents were asked to assess the most and least concerning issue. Data were analyzed using conditional logit, with a Swait-Louviere test of poolability. Latent class analysis was then used to explore preference heterogeneity. RESULTS: In total, 57 respondents completed the BWS experiment May-June 2023 with the Swait-Louviere test indicating that researchers and PHPs could be pooled (p = 0.512). Latent class analysis identified two classes, those highlighting "Harms" (n = 29) (prioritizing concerns about potential risk of legal prosecution, individual harm, and group stigma) and those highlighting "Utility" (n = 28) (prioritizing concerns about limited evidence, resource allocation, non-disclosure of data use for HIV ME, and the potential to infer the directionality of HIV transmission). There were no differences in the characteristics of members across classes. CONCLUSIONS: The ethical issues of HIV ME vary in importance among stakeholders, reflecting different perspectives on the potential impact and usefulness of the data. Knowing these differences exist can directly inform the focus of future deliberations about the policies and practices of HIV ME in the United States.