Ranking Research Methodology by Risk - a cross-sectional study to determine the opinion of research ethics committee members.

BACKGROUND: When reviewing a protocol, research ethics committees (RECs, equivalent to institutional review boards - IRBs) have the responsibility to consider whether the proposed research is justified. If research is not justified, it can waste participants' time, researchers' time and resources. As RECs are not constituted to cover all areas of scientific or academic expertise, it can be difficult for RECs to decide whether research is scientifically or methodologically justified especially in the absence of authoritative (often in the form of systematic) reviews. Where such reviews are absent, some have argued that RECs should insist on a new review of existing evidence as a condition of the REC favourable opinion. However, as RECs review a wide range of research, such requests must be proportionate to the type, and extent, of proposed projects. Risk is one factor that may influence the extent of evidence need for a REC to determine that the new project is justified, but not the only factor. The aim of the work described here was to determine whether REC members and researchers specifically link risk to the type of research methodology, and if so, whether this link could be used to help guide the need for systematic, or other, types of reviews. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional study, gathering data between November 2020 and January 2021, to examine whether proposed research methodologies impact how RECs perceive risk to participants. We presented 31 research methodologies to REC members and researchers in the form of an international survey. RESULTS: We collected 283 responses that included both qualitative and quantitative data as to how research methodology impacts perceptions of risk to participants. We used the data to conclude that RECs did see a link between risk and type of research. We therefore constructed a hierarchy of risk with Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, and clinical psychology/psychiatry intervention studies, at the top (i.e. viewed as most risky). CONCLUSIONS: We discuss whether this hierarchy is useful for guiding RECs as to the level of scientific justification that they should seek when reviewing proposed research protocols, and present a one-page guidance sheet to help RECs during their reviews.

The trinity of good research: Distinguishing between research integrity, ethics, and governance.

The words integrity, ethics, and governance are used interchangeably in relation to research. This masks important differences that must be understood when trying to address concerns regarding research culture. While progress has been made in identifying negative aspects of research culture (such as inequalities in hiring/promotion, perverse incentives, etc.) and practical issues that lead to research waste (outcome reporting bias, reproducibility, etc.), the responsibility for addressing these problems can be unclear due to the complexity of the research environment. One solution is to provide a clearer distinction between the perspectives of "Research Integrity," "Research Ethics," and "Research Governance." Here, it is proposed that Research Integrity should be understood as focused on the character of researchers, and consequently the responsibility for promoting it lies primarily with researchers themselves. This is a different perspective from Research Ethics, which is focused on judgments on the ethical acceptability of research, and should primarily be the responsibility of research ethics committees, often including input from the public as well as the research community. Finally, Research Governance focuses on legal and policy requirements, and although complementary to research integrity and ethics, is primarily the responsibility of expert research support officers with the skills and experience to address technical compliance.

Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved.

The rapid development of vaccines and other innovative medical technologies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic required streamlined and efficient ethics and governance processes. In the UK the Health Research Authority (HRA) oversees and coordinates a number of the relevant research governance processes including the independent ethics review of research projects. The HRA was instrumental in facilitating the rapid review and approval of COVID-19 projects, and following the end of the pandemic, have been keen to integrate new ways of working into the UK Health Departments' Research Ethics Service. In January 2022 the HRA commissioned a public consultation that identified strong public support for alternative ethics review processes. Here we report feedback from 151 current research ethics committee members conducted at three annual training events, where we asked members to critically reflect on their ethics review activities, and to share new ideas or ways of working. The results showed a high regard for good quality discussion among members with diverse experience. Good chairing, organisation, feedback and the opportunity for reflection on ways of working were considered key. Areas for improvement included the consistency of information provided to committees by researchers, and better structuring of discussions by allowing signposting of the key issues that ethics committee members might need to consider.

Ethics, Legality, and Safety for Geneticists.

Never before have we had the methods to edit or manipulate genes and genomes in the way we can today. This volume has described technologies that, a generation ago, were unthinkable. But such power raises broader issues on how we wield it. These concerns are relevant at a number of levels, from basic safety, through the importance of scientific reproducibility and transparency, to Ethical, Philosophical, or even Political considerations. But why should this matter to a laboratory scientist - surely results are the main aim of experiments? However, such a view misses the important point that alongside our research generating new information, experience gained conducting research can also be used for influence far beyond the lab bench. Indeed, how research is conducted can be as important as the results themselves because our actions also reflect and inform the values that society and us as individuals view as important. Rather than focusing on the details of policy or legislation, this chapter therefore seeks to reflect on how Ethics, Legality, and Safety impact the molecular biologist, and why researchers need to view these not as bureaucracy, but rather as a critical part of their wider scientific identity and task.

Ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies: A joint HRA/WHO workshop.

This report of a joint World Health Organization (WHO) and United Kingdom (UK) Health Research Authority (HRA) workshop discusses the ethics review of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies, undertaken in the midst of the pandemic. It reviews the early efforts of international and national institutions to define the ethical standards required for COVID-19 human challenge studies and create the frameworks to ensure rigorous and timely review of these studies. This report evaluates the utility of the WHO's international guidance document Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies (WHO Key Criteria) as a practical resource for the ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies. It also assesses the UK HRA's approach to these complex ethics reviews, including the formation of a Specialist Ad-Hoc Research Ethics Committee (REC) for COVID-19 Human Challenge Studies to review all current and future COVID-19 human challenge studies. In addition, the report outlines the reflections of REC members and researchers regarding the ethics review process of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies. Finally, it considers the potential ongoing scientific justification for COVID-19 human challenge studies, particularly in relation to next-generation vaccines and optimisation of vaccination schedules. Overall, there was broad agreement that the WHO Key Criteria represented an international consensus document that played a powerful role in setting norms and delineating the necessary conditions for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies. Workshop members suggested that the WHO Key Criteria could be practically implemented to support researchers and ethics reviewers, including in the training of ethics committee members. In future, a wider audience may be engaged by the original document and potential additional materials, informed by the experiences of those involved in the first COVID-19 human challenge studies outlined in this document.

The mitochondrial activity of leukocytes from Artibeus jamaicensis bats remains unaltered after several weeks of flying restriction.

Bats are the only flying mammals known. They have longer lifespan than other mammals of similar size and weight and can resist high loads of many pathogens, mostly viruses, with no signs of disease. These distinctive characteristics have been attributed to their metabolic rate that is thought to be the result of their flying lifestyle. Compared with non-flying mammals, bats have lower production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), and high levels of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase. This anti-oxidative vs. oxidative profile may help to explain bat's longer than expected lifespans. The aim of this study was to assess the effect that a significant reduction in flying has on bats leukocytes mitochondrial activity. This was assessed using samples of lymphoid and myeloid cells from peripheral blood from Artibeus jamaicensis bats shortly after capture and up to six weeks after flying deprivation. Mitochondrial membrane potential (Δψm), mitochondrial calcium (mCa2+), and mitochondrial ROS (mROS) were used as key indicators of mitochondrial activity, while total ROS and glucose uptake were used as additional indicators of cell metabolism. Results showed that total ROS and glucose uptake were statistically significantly lower at six weeks of flying deprivation (p < 0.05), in both lymphoid and myeloid cells, however no significant changes in mitochondrial activity associated with flying deprivation was observed (p > 0.05). These results suggest that bat mitochondria are stable to sudden changes in physical activity, at least up to six weeks of flying deprivation. However, decrease in total ROS and glucose uptake in myeloid cells after six weeks of captivity suggest a compensatory mechanism due to the lack of the highly metabolic demands associated with flying.

'The ethics approval took 20 months on a trial which was meant to help terminally ill cancer patients. In the end we had to send the funding back': a survey of views on human research ethics reviews.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a survey to identify what types of health/medical research could be exempt from research ethics reviews in Australia. METHODS: We surveyed Australian health/medical researchers and Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members. The survey asked whether respondents had previously changed or abandoned a project anticipating difficulties obtaining ethics approval, and presented eight research scenarios, asking whether these scenarios should or should not be exempt from ethics review, and to provide (optional) comments. Qualitative data were analysed thematically; quantitative data in R. RESULTS: We received 514 responses. Forty-three per cent of respondents to whom the question applied, reported changing projects in anticipation of obstacles from the ethics review process; 25% reported abandoning projects for this reason. Research scenarios asking professional staff to provide views in their area of expertise were most commonly exempted from ethics review (to prioritise systematic review topics 84%, on software strengths/weaknesses 85%); scenarios involving surplus samples (82%) and N-of-1 (single case) studies (76%) were most commonly required to undergo ethics review. HREC members were 26% more likely than researchers to require ethics review. Need for independent oversight, and low risk, were most frequently cited in support of decisions to require or exempt from ethics review, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable differences exist between researchers and HREC members, about when to exempt from review the research that ultimately serves the interests of patients and the public. It is widely accepted that evaluative research should be used to reduce clinical uncertainties-the same principle should apply to ethics reviews.

Determining the level of data sharing, and number of publications, from research databases that have been given a favourable opinion by UK research ethics committees.

OBJECTIVE: To determine data sharing and number of publications coming from research databases that have been given a favourable opinion by UK National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committees (RECs). DESIGN: Cohort study. INCLUSION CRITERIA & SETTING: All research databases listed on the UK Health Research Authority's Assessment Review Portal (HARP) that had received a favourable ethics opinion as of January 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Publications and data access requests are either listed on HARP or notified through subsequent email correspondence. RESULTS: Out of 354 eligible databases, 34% had granted access requests and 40% had produced at least one peer-reviewed paper or conference abstract/talk. We could not establish contact with 9% of databases, and 19% reported no access requests or publications. Only 9% of databases were up to date with all annual reports. Email responses from database owners showed a range of attitudes towards data sharing. CONCLUSION: Less than half of research databases that have received a favourable opinion from NHS research ethics committees share their data and produce publications. There is also considerable variability in the operation of research databases and understanding of the purpose of research databases. This work was hampered by incomplete records due mainly to researchers not submitting annual reports.

Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Disproportionate regulation of health and medical research contributes to research waste. Better understanding of exemptions of research from ethics review in different jurisdictions may help to guide modification of review processes and reduce research waste. Our aim was to identify examples of low-risk human health and medical research exempt from ethics reviews in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands. METHODS: We examined documents providing national guidance on research ethics in each country, including those authored by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), National Health Service (United Kingdom), the Office for Human Research Protections (United States) and the Central Committee on Research Involving Humans (the Netherlands). Examples and types of research projects exempt from ethics reviews were identified, and similar examples and types were grouped together. RESULTS: Nine categories of research were exempt from ethics reviews across the four countries; these were existing data or specimen, questionnaire or survey, interview, post-marketing study, evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, audit and service evaluation, and other exemptions. Existing non-identifiable data and specimens were exempt in all countries. Four categories - evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, and audit and service evaluation - were exempted by one country each. The remaining categories were exempted by two or three countries. CONCLUSIONS: Examples and types of research exempt from research ethics reviews varied considerably. Given the considerable costs and burdens on researchers and ethics committees, it would be worthwhile to develop and provide clearer guidance on exemptions, illustrated with examples, with transparent underpinning rationales.

Research approvals iceberg: helping it melt away.

BACKGROUND: In their paper "Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better" Petrova and Barclay highlight concerns with the health research regulatory environment in the UK. DISCUSSION: As long-standing chairs of NHS research ethics committees, researchers, and also academics in research ethics, we are also often frustrated with the regulatory process in the UK. However, we think that Petrova and Barclay's analysis is misleading because it conflates research ethics with governance and funding processes, thus failing to adequately distinguish between the national coordinating function of the Health Research Authority, local research governance processes, and interactions with research sponsors and/or the Clinical Research Network.

Virus Control of Cell Metabolism for Replication and Evasion of Host Immune Responses.

Over the last decade, there has been significant advances in the understanding of the cross-talk between metabolism and immune responses. It is now evident that immune cell effector function strongly depends on the metabolic pathway in which cells are engaged in at a particular point in time, the activation conditions, and the cell microenvironment. It is also clear that some metabolic intermediates have signaling as well as effector properties and, hence, topics such as immunometabolism, metabolic reprograming, and metabolic symbiosis (among others) have emerged. Viruses completely rely on their host's cell energy and molecular machinery to enter, multiply, and exit for a new round of infection. This review explores how viruses mimic, exploit or interfere with host cell metabolic pathways and how, in doing so, they may evade immune responses. It offers a brief outline of key metabolic pathways, mitochondrial function and metabolism-related signaling pathways, followed by examples of the mechanisms by which several viral proteins regulate host cell metabolic activity.

Registration audit of clinical trials given a favourable opinion by UK research ethics committees.

OBJECTIVE: To determine levels of public registration for a cohort of clinical trials reviewed and given a favourable opinion by research ethics committees in the United Kingdom. STUDY DESIGN: Audit of records. SETTING: Clinical trials receiving a favourable ethics opinion between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Correlation between trials on the UK research ethics committee database and any primary registry entry on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform or clinicaltrials.gov as of 29 August 2017 (14 to 20 months after the favourable ethics committee opinion). RESULTS: Over the study period 1014 trials received a favourable ethics opinion, with 397 (39%) registered on the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials database, and 18 with an agreed clinical trial registration deferral. Excluding these trials, the total number subsequently requiring registration was 599, and of these 405 (40% of total) were found to be registered. Follow-up with the 194 investigators or sponsors of trials not found to be registered produced 121 responses with a further 10 (1%) trials having already registered, 55 commitments to register and a variety of other responses. The overall registration rate was therefore 80%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite researchers and sponsors being reminded that registration of clinical trials is a condition of the research ethics committee (REC) favourable opinion, one-fifth of clinical trials either had not been registered, or their registration could not easily be found, 14 to 20 months after receiving the favourable opinion letter. The methodology trialled here proved effective, and although there are positive indications of a culture change towards greater registration, our results show that more still needs to be done to increase trial registration.