In many countries around the world, people who inject drugs remain at high risk of HIV acquisition not because effective forms of prevention are unknown, nor because they find effective prevention undesirable, but because those in charge, mainly politicians but also bureaucrats, find evidence-based practice politically unacceptable. The evidence for preventive efficacy of harm reduction strategies, most prominently needle and syringe programmes but also treatment programmes such as opiate substitution, is irrefutable.1 However, political responses to drug use issues are varied (...) and complex, so the will to implement appropriate harm reduction programmes in the interests of public health remains lacking in too many jurisdictions. As a consequence, the discussion of how best, in the context of research, to reduce HIV incidence in populations of people who inject drugs but are not offered comprehensive access to known prevention strategies is—tragically—an important one. Dawson et al 2 focus on access to sterile injecting equipment and recognise that this should remain the ‘default’ standard of prevention for HIV prevention trials involving people for whom injecting drug use is the primary risk factor for HIV acquisition. ‘Standard of prevention’ means the background or minimal HIV risk reduction interventions offered to all participants in a trial, regardless of what other investigational interventions they are assigned to receive. The standard of prevention concept is grounded in the ethical principle of beneficence—that researchers and sponsors are obliged to maximise benefits and minimise risks to participants in research studies.3 …. (shrink)

In clinical research there is a tension between the role of a doctor, who must serve the best interests of the patient, and the role of the researcher, who must produce knowledge that may not have any immediate benefits for the research participant. This tension is exacerbated in HIV research in low and middle income countries, which frequently uncovers comorbidities other than the condition under study. Some bioethicists argue that as the goals of medicine and those of research are distinct, (...) it is a mistake for researchers to assume therapeutic responsibilities while engaging in research. Others propose that there is a duty of care, but disagree as to how this is limited and specified. In this qualitative study, principal investigators from HIV prevention trials discuss their experience of providing medical benefits to participants within the context of conducting research into HIV biomedical prevention technologies. They describe the limitations imposed at times by funders and at times by infrastructure constraints, and canvass the importance of ancillary care provision and capacity building in trial communities. The views of the principal investigators are compatible with the perspective that there is a duty of care, limited by the nature of the research, the depth of the relationship between research and participant, and the capacity of the research site. The therapeutic orientation in HIV prevention trial appears to be indivisible from competent research practise by making concrete and appropriate benefits available to trial participants and their communities that support rather than compete with local infrastructure. (shrink)

This article examines the relationship between bioethics and the therapeutic standards in HIV prevention research in the developing world, focusing on the closure of the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) trials in the early 2000s. I situate the PrEP trials in the historical context of the vertical transmission debates of the 1990s, where there was protracted debate over the use of placebos despite the existence of a proven intervention. I then discuss the dramatic improvement in the clinical management of HIV and the (...) treatment access movement, and consider how these contexts have influenced research practice. I argue that as HIV prevention trials oblige researchers to observe the rate at which vulnerable people under their care acquire HIV, there is an obligation to provide antiretroviral treatment to seroconverters and other health care benefits that fall within the scope of researchers' entrustment, both to avoid exploitation and to enact reciprocal justice. I argue against propositions that the obligations to provide specific benefits are vague, fall only upon researchers and sponsors, and create injustices by privileging the few over the many. Finally, I contend that the realisation of a broader standard of care in HIV prevention research broadens the role of research from being a simple tool to produce knowledge to a complex intervention that can play a part in the reduction of health disparities. (shrink)

Dental caries is the main oral health challenge for children in Nigeria. Concern about its negative impact makes screening for caries in children an attractive public health strategy. The ability to detect the preclinical phase of caries, the availability of screening tools with high accuracy, and the possibility of treatment before onset of clinical symptoms with significant cost and health benefits, makes it appropriate for screening. However in Nigeria, the poor availability of highly specific and sensitive screening tools, poor access (...) to oral health care and concerns with pre-screening consent, raise the question of the appropriateness of conducting screening programmes for children. We argue that a number of structural challenges associated with poor uptake of oral health care services need to be addressed before screening for caries can be considered ethically appropriate. These include facilitating access of children to quality oral health care and a systematic national approach to oral health impl... (shrink)

In their recent paper‘Undue inducement: a case study in CAPRISA 008’, Mngadi et al conclude that a participant in an HIV prevention study who deliberately concealed her pregnancy was not ‘unduly induced’ to participate by the offer of an experimental product. This paper argues that while the authors’ conclusion is sound, the framing of this case study is consistent with the preoccupation in research ethics with the concept of undue inducement, coupled with a highly risk-averse attitude to pregnancy. We suggest (...) that the critical research ethics question raised by Mngadi et al ’s case study is not ‘undue inducement’, but the exclusion of pregnant women from research studies where the risks are acceptable to the potential participant, and benefits likely. We also suggest that current regulatory paradigms regarding pregnancy are both overly paternalistic and value the fetus over the mother. In order to ensure timely provision of new HIV prevention agents, we argue that there is a need for expeditious testing of proven effective agents in pregnancy, with due consideration given to situations where preliminary efficacy data exist but fall short of licensure standards. This requires a paradigm shift from researchers, funders, regulators and ethical review bodies towards practices that critically examine the legitimacy of the exclusion of pregnant women on a study-by-study basis. (shrink)