Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research.

BACKGROUND: The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice. In this paper we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022. METHODS: The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, research ethics committee members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. In 2022 the focus of the GFBR was "Ethics of AI in Global Health Research". The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations, 16 governance presentations, and a series of small group and large group discussions. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. In this paper, we highlight central insights arising from GFBR 2022. RESULTS: We describe the significance of four thematic insights arising from the forum: (1) Appropriateness of building AI, (2) Transferability of AI systems, (3) Accountability for AI decision-making and outcomes, and (4) Individual consent. We then describe eight recommendations for governance leaders to enhance the ethical governance of AI in global health research, addressing issues such as AI impact assessments, environmental values, and fair partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: The 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.

Digital tools for youth health promotion: principles, policies and practices in sub-Saharan Africa.

Although digital health promotion (DHP) technologies for young people are increasingly available in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there has been insufficient research investigating whether existing ethical and policy frameworks are adequate to address the challenges and promote the technological opportunities in these settings. In an effort to fill this gap and as part of a larger research project, in November 2022, we conducted a workshop in Cape Town, South Africa, entitled 'Unlocking the Potential of Digital Health Promotion for Young People in Low- and Middle-Income Countries'. The workshop brought together 25 experts from the areas of digital health ethics, youth health and engagement, health policy and promotion and technology development, predominantly from sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), to explore their views on the ethics and governance and potential policy pathways of DHP for young people in LMICs. Using the World Café method, participants contributed their views on (i) the advantages and barriers associated with DHP for youth in LMICs, (ii) the availability and relevance of ethical and regulatory frameworks for DHP and (iii) the translation of ethical principles into policies and implementation practices required by these policies, within the context of SSA. Our thematic analysis of the ensuing discussion revealed a willingness to foster such technologies if they prove safe, do not exacerbate inequalities, put youth at the center and are subject to appropriate oversight. In addition, our work has led to the potential translation of fundamental ethical principles into the form of a policy roadmap for ethically aligned DHP for youth in SSA.

Ethical approval for controlled human infectious model clinical trial protocols - A workshop report.

Controlled Human Infectious Model studies (CHIM) involve deliberately exposing volunteers to pathogens. To discuss ethical issues related to CHIM, the European Vaccine Initiative and the International Alliance for Biological Standardization organised the workshop "Ethical Approval for CHIM Clinical Trial Protocols", which took place on May 30-31, 2023, in Brussels, Belgium. The event allowed CHIM researchers, regulators, ethics committee (EC) members, and ethicists to examine the ethical criteria for CHIM and the role(s) of CHIM in pharmaceutical development. The discussions led to several recommendations, including continued assurance that routine ethical requirements are met, assurance that participants are well-informed, and that preparation of study documents must be both ethically and scientifically sound from an early stage. Study applications must clearly state the rationale for the challenge compared to alternative study designs. ECs need to have clear guidance and procedures for evaluating social value and assessing third-party risks. Among other things, public trust in research requires minimisation of harm to healthy volunteers and third-party risk. Other important considerations include appropriate stakeholder engagement, public education, and access to health care for participants after the study.

Preparing ethical review systems for emergencies: next steps.

Ethical review systems need to build on their experiences of COVID-19 research to enhance their preparedness for future pandemics. Recommendations from representatives from over twenty countries include: improving relationships across the research ecosystem; demonstrating willingness to reform and adapt systems and processes; and making the case robustly for better resourcing.

Ethics, climate change and health - a landscape review.

Anthropogenic climate change is unequivocal, and many of its physical health impacts have been identified, although further research is required into the mental health and wellbeing effects of climate change. There is a lack of understanding of the importance of ethics in policy-responses to health and climate change which is also linked to the lack of specific action-guiding ethical resources for researchers and practitioners. There is a marked paucity of ethically-informed health input into economic policy-responses to climate change-an area of important future work. The interaction between health, climate change and ethics is technically and theoretically complex and work in this area is fragmentary, unfocussed, and underdeveloped. Research and reflection on climate and health is fragmented and plagued by disciplinary silos and exponentially increasing literature means that the field cannot be synthesised using conventional methods. Reviewing the literature in these fields is therefore methodologically challenging. Although many of the normative challenges in responding to climate change have been identified, available theoretical approaches are insufficiently robust, and this may be linked to the lack of action-guiding support for practitioners. There is a lack of ethical reflection on research into climate change responses. Low-HDI (Human Development Index) countries are under-represented in research and publication both in the health-impacts of climate change, and normative reflection on health and climate change policy. There is a noticeable lack of ethical commentary on a range of key topics in the environmental health literature including population, pollution, transport, energy, food, and water use. Serious work is required to synthesise the principles governing policy responses to health and climate change, particularly in relation to value conflicts between the human and non-human world and the challenges presented by questions of intergenerational justice.

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.

Guideline for feedback of individual genetic research findings for genomics research in Africa.

As human genomics research in Africa continues to generate large amounts of data, ethical issues arise regarding how actionable genetic information is shared with research participants. The Human Heredity and Health in Africa Consortium (H3Africa) Ethics and Community Engagement Working group acknowledged the need for such guidance, identified key issues and principles relevant to genomics research in Africa and developed a practical guideline for consideration of feeding back individual genetic results of health importance in African research projects. This included a decision flowchart, providing a logical framework to assist in decision-making and planning for human genomics research projects. Although presented in the context of the H3Africa Consortium, we believe the principles described, and the decision flowchart presented here is applicable more broadly in African genomics research.

Taking stock of the availability and functions of National Ethics Committees worldwide.

BACKGROUND: National Ethics Committees (NECs) offer important oversight and guidance functions and facilitate public debate on bioethical issues. In an increasingly globalized world where technological advances, multi-national research collaborations, and pandemics are creating ethical dilemmas that transcend national borders, coordination and the joining of efforts among NECs are key. The purpose of this study is to take stock of the current NEC landscape, their varying roles and missions, and the range of bioethical topics on which they deliberated since their inception. METHODS: Data on the availability, functions, and ethical deliberations (publications) of NECs globally were gathered through a systematic search of NEC websites and through contacts known to the authors. The search was conducted in English, French, and Spanish. The data abstraction was done in Excel and included the NEC's country, region, functions, and deliberations on bioethical issues. Deliberation topics were classified into thematic categories through an iterative process of regrouping to arrive at the main set of themes. RESULTS: 124 NECs in 100 countries were identified. 44% of the NECs are in Europe and 47% are in high-income countries. Out of the 1108 retrieved publications, 40% were on bioethics in the context of research, followed by the clinic (28%) and public health issues (22%). The top five topics of these publications were: research ethics (124; 9%), genetics and genomics (62; 6%), organ transplantation (58; 5%), assisted reproductive technology (49; 4%), and end of life (36; 3%). CONCLUSION: Our study makes an important contribution to understanding the current interests and functions of NECs and the range of their bioethics deliberations. By making the data publicly available through this publication, it allows users to conduct tailored analyses and queries based on their interests, and to seek and strengthen collaboration and exchange. It also makes the case for the fruitfulness of developing and maintaining a global repository of current and new deliberations to more effectively advance this field for the greater good of humanity, research, and public health.

Proceedings of an expert workshop on community agreement for gene drive research in Africa - Co-organised by KEMRI, PAMCA and Target Malaria.

Gene drive research is progressing towards future field evaluation of modified mosquitoes for malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa. While many literature sources and guidance point to the inadequacy of individual informed consent for any genetically modified mosquito release, including gene drive ones, (outside of epidemiological studies that might require blood samples) and at the need for a community-level decision, researchers often find themselves with no specific guidance on how that decision should be made, expressed and by whom. Target Malaria, the Kenya Medical Research Institute and the Pan African Mosquito Control Association co-organised a workshop with researchers and practitioners on this topic to question the model proposed by Target Malaria in its research so far that involved the release of genetically modified sterile male mosquitoes and how this could be adapted to future studies involving gene drive mosquito releases for them to offer reflections about potential best practices. This paper shares the outcomes of that workshop and highlights the remaining topics for discussion before a comprehensive model can be designed.

Immunity certification for COVID-19: ethical considerations.

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights.

Les restrictions imposées dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ont eu de lourdes conséquences économiques, sociales et sanitaires. Certains pays ont envisagé la mise en place d'une stratégie visant à alléger ces restrictions pour les individus guéris en leur octroyant un document communément appelé «passeport d'immunité¼. Ce document atteste qu'ils ont développé une immunité protectrice contre le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SARS-CoV-2), le virus à l'origine de la COVID-19. L'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a déconseillé l'usage du certificat d'immunité pour l'instant, car l'incertitude demeure quant à l'existence réelle d'une immunité à long terme pour ceux qui se sont remis de la COVID-19. En outre, la fiabilité des tests sérologiques censés déterminer si l'individu est immunisé n'est pas avérée. Un tel certificat ne peut être instauré que si les seuils scientifiques en matière d'immunité sont respectés, qu'ils soient fondés sur les anticorps ou sur d'autres critères. Néanmoins, même si le certificat d'immunité est désormais bien accepté par la science, il s'accompagne de nombreuses questions d'ordre éthique en ce qui concerne la limitation des libertés individuelles et la mise en œuvre. Dans le présent document, nous examinons les principales considérations à prendre en compte pour garantir l'acceptabilité éthique du certificat d'immunité visant à lever les mesures de restriction pour certaines personnes durant la pandémie de COVID-19. Cette acceptabilité éthique dépend non seulement de son degré de conformité à des critères scientifiques stricts, mais aussi de son usage, des objectifs politiques ainsi que des mesures mises en place pour atténuer les préjudices potentiels et éviter d'imposer une charge disproportionnée sur les individus dépourvus de certificat, ou de bafouer les droits et libertés de tout un chacun.

Las medidas restrictivas impuestas a causa de la pandemia de la enfermedad coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) han tenido graves efectos sociales, económicos y sanitarios. Algunos países han considerado la posibilidad de utilizar la certificación de inmunidad como estrategia para flexibilizar dichas medidas para las personas que se han recuperado de la infección mediante la expedición a dichas personas de un documento, comúnmente denominado pasaporte de inmunidad. Este documento certifica que han desarrollado inmunidad protectora contra el coronavirus-2 del síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), el virus que causa la COVID-19. La Organización Mundial de la Salud ha desaconsejado la aplicación de la certificación de la inmunidad en la actualidad debido a la incertidumbre sobre si existe realmente una inmunidad a largo plazo para quienes se han recuperado de la COVID-19 y a las preocupaciones sobre la fiabilidad del método de prueba serológica propuesto para determinar la inmunidad. La certificación de la inmunidad solo puede considerarse si se cumplen los umbrales científicos para asegurar la inmunidad, ya sea que se basen en anticuerpos o en otros criterios. Sin embargo, incluso si la certificación de la inmunidad llegara a estar bien respaldada por la ciencia, tiene muchas cuestiones éticas en cuanto a las diferentes restricciones de las libertades individuales y su proceso de aplicación. Examinamos las principales consideraciones sobre la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de la inmunidad para eximir a los individuos de las medidas restrictivas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. Además de necesitar cumplir criterios científicos sólidos, la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de inmunidad depende de sus usos y objetivos de política y de las medidas que se apliquen para reducir los posibles daños y evitar que se impongan cargas desproporcionadas a las personas que no cuenten con dicha certificación y se violen las libertades y derechos individuales.

Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies: Report of a WHO Working Group.

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable.

The global forum on bioethics in research meeting, "ethics of alternative clinical trial designs and methods in low- and middle-income country research": emerging themes and outputs.

Alternative clinical trial designs and methods are increasingly being used in place of the conventional individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) in high-income and in low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) research. These approaches - including adaptive, cluster-randomised and stepped-wedge designs and controlled human infection models - offer a number of potential advantages, including being more efficient and making the clinical trial process more socially acceptable. However, these designs and methods are generally not familiar to researchers, research ethics committees and regulators and their ethical implications have not received sufficient international attention from the bioethics, research, and policymaking communities working together. The ethics of alternative clinical trial designs and methods in LMIC research was chosen as a topic for the 2017 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR). The meeting opened a global dialogue about this emerging issue in research ethics and gave voice to the LMIC perspective. It identified the need to take a multidisciplinary approach and to develop capacity amongst researchers and research ethics committees and regulators to propose, review and regulate these novel designs and methods. Building skills and infrastructure will empower researchers to choose from a broad range of designs and methods and adopt the most scientifically suitable, efficient, ethical and context-appropriate of these. The need for capacity development is most pressing from the LMIC perspective, where limited resources create an urgency to seek the most efficient trial design and method. The aim of this paper is to encourage broad debate about this complex area of research. By opening up this debate, GFBR aims to promote the appropriate and ethical use of novel designs and methods so their full potential to address the health needs in LMICs can be realised.

Engaging research ethics committees to develop an ethics and governance framework for best practices in genomic research and biobanking in Africa: the H3Africa model.

In the past decade, there has been an increase in genomic research and biobanking activities in Africa. Research initiatives such as the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) Consortium are contributing to the development of scientific capacity and infrastructure to support these studies on the continent. Despite this growth, genomic research and biobanking have raised important ethical challenges for key research stakeholders, including members of research ethics committees. One of these is the limited ethical and regulatory frameworks to guide the review and conduct of genomic studies, particularly in Africa. This paper is a reflection on a series of consultative activities with research ethics committees in Africa which informed the development of an ethics and governance framework for best practices in genomic research and biobanking in Africa. The paper highlights the engagement process and the lessoned learned.

'Your DNA, Your Say': global survey gathering attitudes toward genomics: design, delivery and methods.

Our international study, 'Your DNA, Your Say', uses film and an online cross-sectional survey to gather public attitudes toward the donation, access and sharing of DNA information. We describe the methodological approach used to create an engaging and bespoke survey, suitable for translation into many different languages. We address some of the particular challenges in designing a survey on the subject of genomics. In order to understand the significance of a genomic result, researchers and clinicians alike use external databases containing DNA and medical information from thousands of people. We ask how publics would like their 'anonymous' data to be used (or not to be used) and whether they are concerned by the potential risks of reidentification; the results will be used to inform policy.

Sharing health research data - the role of funders in improving the impact.

Recent public health emergencies with outbreaks of influenza, Ebola and Zika revealed that the mechanisms for sharing research data are neither being used, or adequate for the purpose, particularly where data needs to be shared rapidly. A review of research papers, including completed clinical trials related to priority pathogens, found only 31% (98 out of 319 published papers, excluding case studies) provided access to all the data underlying the paper - 65% of these papers give no information on how to find or access the data. Only two clinical trials out of 58 on interventions for WHO priority pathogens provided any link in their registry entry to the background data. Interviews with researchers revealed a reluctance to share data included a lack of confidence in the utility of the data; an absence of academic-incentives for rapid dissemination that prevents subsequent publication and a disconnect between those who are collecting the data and those who wish to use it quickly.  The role of the funders of research needs to change to address this. Funders need to engage early with the researchers and related stakeholders to understand their concerns and work harder to define the more explicitly the benefits to all stakeholders.  Secondly, there needs to be a direct benefit to sharing data that is directly relevant to those people that collect and curate the data. Thirdly more work needs to be done to realise the intent of making data sharing resources more equitable, ethical and efficient.  Finally, a checklist of the issues that need to be addressed when designing new or revising existing data sharing resources should be created. This checklist would highlight the technical, cultural and ethical issues that need to be considered and point to examples of emerging good practice that can be used to address them.

Model framework for governance of genomic research and biobanking in Africa - a content description.

Genomic research and biobanking are expanding globally, with a promise to fast-track the research needed to improve approaches to disease treatment and prevention through scientific collaborations such as the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) initiative. Integral to this type of research is the availability of samples and data for research. The need for broad access brings along a host of ethical concerns, including those related to privacy and confidentiality, as well as fairness and equity in access and capacity to utilise these samples between scientists from the high income and low income countries. Addressing these concerns while promoting genomic research, especially in Africa, requires the implementation of a sound governance framework. In this paper, we describe the contents of a Framework for Best Practice for Genomics Research and biobanking in Africa that was developed, under the auspices of the H3Africa initiative. This framework is broad enough to be used and adapted by African countries to facilitate the development of country-specific guidelines and to help improve the conduct and governance of genomics research.