ABSTRACTGiven the ethical controversies concerning HIV vaccine trials , we aimed to understand through an exploratory study how members of institutional review boards in the United States and research ethics committees in South Africa view issues concerning the process and content of reviews of these studies. We mailed packets of 20 questionnaires to 12 US IRB chairs and administrators and seven REC chairs to distribute to their members. We received 113 questionnaires . In both countries, members tended to be white (...) males with advanced academic degrees. Compared to the US, SA members called for ‘major changes’ in HVT protocols more frequently , and were less likely to think that HVT participants understood risks and benefits or informed consent forms . In both countries, members were divided on several critical issues , but agreed that they needed more training. Of the SA respondents, 40% reported that they were ‘self‐taught’ in ethics. This study, the first we know of to offer quantitative data comparing US vs. non‐US IRBs/RECs, thus suggests key similarities and differences , along with needs for education. These initial exploratory data in this area have important implications for IRBs, RECs, policy‐makers and scholars concerning future practice, training, policy, and investigations in research ethics, and prevention and treatment of HIV and other diseases in the developing world and elsewhere. (shrink)

The welfare and protection of human subjects is critical to the integrity of clinical investigation and research. Institutional review boards were thus set up to be impartial reviewers of research protocols in clinical research. Their main role is to stand between the investigator and her human subjects in order to ensure that the welfare of human subjects are protected. While there is much literature on the conflicts of interest faced by investigators and researchers in clinical investigations, an area that is (...) less explored is CIs that may affect members of IRBs during the institutional ethics review of clinical investigations. This article examines the notion of CIs in clinical research and attempts to develop a framework for a clearer and more balanced approach to identifying CIs that may influence members of IRBs and impede their independence. It will also apply the proposed framework to demonstrate how IRBs possess, or at least may appear to possess, forms of financial CIs and non-financial CIs. The proper identification and management of these CIs is critical to preserving the integrity of clinical investigations and achieving the primary aim of human subjects protection. (shrink)

This article examines issues relating to ethics decision-making in clinical trials. The overriding concern is to ensure that the well being and the interests of human subjects are adequately safeguarded. In this respect, this article will embark on a critical analysis of the ICH-GCP Guideline. The purpose of such an undertaking is to highlight areas of concern and the shortcomings of the existing ICH-GCP Guideline. Particular emphasis is made on how ethics committees perform their duties and responsibilities in line with (...) the principles outlined in the ICH-GCP Guideline. This article will draw attention to the need for a new approach to addressing the weaknesses of the ICH-GCP Guideline in its present form. (shrink)

This article examines issues relating to ethics decision‐making in clinical trials. The overriding concern is to ensure that the well being and the interests of human subjects are adequately safeguarded. In this respect, this article will embark on a critical analysis of the ICH‐GCP Guideline. The purpose of such an undertaking is to highlight areas of concern and the shortcomings of the existing ICH‐GCP Guideline. Particular emphasis is made on how ethics committees perform their duties and responsibilities in line with (...) the principles outlined in the ICH‐GCP Guideline. This article will draw attention to the need for a new approach to addressing the weaknesses of the ICH‐GCP Guideline in its present form. (shrink)

The existing model for ethical review of medical research consists primarily of regulations designed to prevent exploitation of participants. This model may fail when reviewing other ethical obligations, particularly the responsibility to provide valuable knowledge to society. Such failure is most apparent in developing countries, in which many stakeholders lack incentives or power to uphold society’s interests. An alternative ethical model is that of partnership, which actively involves all partners during ethical review and aims to secure partners’ best interests through (...) compromise. Unlike the existing “regulatory” model, the partnership model effectively addresses ethical obligations to provide positive benefits to society. For the partnership model to be effective, power must be shared among partners; thus, the partnership model can be harmonised with the “regulatory” model through explicit consideration of power structures. One opportunity for crafting power balance in developing countries is apparent in “implementation trials”—randomised trials motivated by and integrated into the implementation of long term public health interventions. Given the failings of the existing ethical review model, alternative models—for example, partnership—and means to balance power—for example, implementation trials—must be explored to ensure that medical research provides knowledge of value to societies in the developing world. (shrink)