BackgroundThe global interest in developing therapies for Ebola infection management and its prevention is laudable. However the plan to conduct an emergency immunization program specifically for healthcare workers using experimental vaccines raises some ethical concerns. This paper shares perspectives on these concerns and suggests how some of them may best be addressed.DiscussionThe recruitment of healthcare workers for Ebola vaccine research has challenges. It could result in coercion of initially dissenting healthcare workers to assist in the management of EVD infected persons (...) due to mistaken beliefs that the vaccine offers protection. It could also affect equity and justice. For example, where people who are not skilled health care professionals but who provide care to patients infected with Ebola are not prioritized for vaccination. The possibility of study participants contracting Ebola infection despite the use of experimental vaccine, and the standard of care they would receive, needs to be addressed clearly, transparently and formalized as part of the ethics review process. Future access to study products in view of current status of the TRIPS agreement needs to be addressed. Finally, broad stakeholder engagement at local, regional and international levels needs to be promoted using available communication channels to engage local, regional and international support. These same concerns are applicable for current and future epidemics.SummarySuccessful Ebola vaccine development research requires concerted efforts at public dialogue to address misconceptions, equity and justice in participant selection, and honest discussions about risks, benefits and future access. Public dialogue about Ebola vaccine research plans is crucial and should be conducted by trusted locals and negotiated between communities, researchers and ethics committees in research study sites. (shrink)

HIV prevention is a critical health issue in Nigeria; a country that has one of the worst HIV epidemic profiles in the world. With 270,000 new infections in 2012, Nigeria is a prime site for HIV prevention research. One effect of the HIV epidemic has been to revolutionalise ethical norms for the conduct of research: it is now considered unethical to design and implement HIV related studies without community engagement. Unfortunately, there is very little commensurate effort in building the capacity (...) of local persons to engage actively with researchers, and there is no existing platform to facilitate dialogue between researchers and communities engaged in research in Nigeria. In an effort to address this gap, we undertook a series of three community dialogues and two community-researcher interface meetings in Nigeria. This paper aims to give an empirical account of the dialogue from these community engagement processes and provide a resulting critique of the implementation of research ethics practices in Nigeria. It is anticipated that the outputs will: support researchers in designing community-based research protocols; inform ethics committees of key considerations during research protocol reviews from a community perspective; and inform policy makers and research sponsors about issues of primary concern to communities with respect to HIV research. (shrink)

In 2004, the first ever multi‐sited clinical trials studied the prospect of HIV biomedical prevention (referred to as pre‐exposure prophylaxis—‘PrEP’). The trials were implemented at several international sites, but many officially closed down before they completed. At most sites, both scientists and community AIDS advocates raised concerns over the ethics and scientific rationales of the trial. Focusing on the Nigerian trial site, we detail the controversy that emerged among mostly Nigerian research scientists who scrutinized the research design and protocol. While (...) some of the disputes, especially those pertaining to community engagement mechanisms, were ultimately resolved in international fora and implemented in later PrEP trials, concerns over science rationales and assumptions were never addressed. We argue that scientific rationales should be treated as ethical concerns and suggest that such concerns should be deliberated at host sites before the trial protocol is finalized. (shrink)

Volume 31, Issue 1, December 2020, Page 47-66.