Jecker and Au’s paper raises important issues concerning health equity in pandemic responses, and the importance of considering the long-term effects of pandemic strategy on population health and well-being.1 We welcome their focus on the experience of Asian countries, including Japan. However, we have some concerns with both the distinction which they draw between elimination and mitigation, and their account of the nature and origins of the Japanese response to the COVID-19 pandemic. First, we believe that the distinction between elimination (...) and mitigation is not fine grained enough to capture the various strategies which countries have taken towards the pandemic. Many of Jecker and Au’s criticisms of the elimination strategy relate to specific policies such as lockdowns, travel restrictions and restrictions on businesses, which have been employed by numerous countries irrespective of their end goal. By contrast to the simple elimination/mitigation dichotomy with which Jecker and Au work, Baker et al have identified five separate COVID-19 strategies, namely: exclusion, elimination, suppression, mitigation and no substantive strategy.2 Baker et al define an elimination strategy as ‘maximum action to exclude disease and eliminate community transmission’ with the goal of reaching ‘zero [disease] transmission in the community’. On this account, Japan’s strategy does …. (shrink)

Research ethics consultation services (RECS), which function as an advisory service to facilitate the resolution of complex ethical issues in clinical research, have been proliferating over the last decade. However, the qualification of an individual who provides RECS, or “a research ethics consultant,” has not been thoroughly investigated, in contrast to healthcare ethics consultants, whose core competencies have been discussed and clarified to a great extent. In this study, we investigated core competencies necessary for research ethics consultants, referring to the (...) core competency models of ethics consultants developed in the healthcare practice context, and propose a competency model for research ethics consultants. (shrink)

Ongoing research on making “human-animal chimeras” or “animals containing human material” to solve the shortage of organs available for transplantation has raised many ethical issues regarding the creation and utilization of such constructs, including cultural views regarding the status of those creations. A pilot study was conducted to explore Japanese public attitudes toward human-animal chimeras or ACHM. The February 2012 study consisted of focus group interviews with citizens from the Greater Tokyo Area, aged between 20 and 54. The 24 participants (...) were divided into four groups. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed and participants’ attitudes categorized. Five categories of participant attitudes were identified: resistance to the unnatural, concerns about animal welfare, concerns about controlling human-animal chimeras, concerns about the possible birth of intermediate entities, and resistance to creating and utilizing animals containing my material or my child’s material. Our FGI results showed a broader and greater variety of public concerns than those reported in previous studies. While researchers have tried to establish new methods to avoid creating intermediate entities, our participants expressed concerns about not only intermediate entities but also animals containing their own material or their child’s material. Based upon their responses in the interviews, we are introducing a new ethical concern: “animals containing my material/my child’s material.”. (shrink)

This study investigated the circumstances and problems that departments of forensic medicine encounter with bereaved families regarding samples obtained from medico-legal autopsies. A questionnaire was posted to all 76 departments of forensic medicine performing medico-legal autopsies in Japan, and responses were received from 48 . Of the respondents, 12.8% had approached and communicated with bereaved families about collecting samples from the deceased person during an autopsy and the storage of the samples. In addition, 23.4% of these had informed families that (...) samples might be used in research. Eighteen departments had received enquiries and requests from families about the samples, with most requests concerning their return. The response to such requests varied according to the department. Few departments interacted with the bereaved families regarding the procedure for obtaining autopsy samples, and their methods for handling family concerns differed depending on the person within the department authorised to contact the family. Moreover, the procedures for engaging in such communication have long been unclear, and no legal or ethical consensus or agreement with the general public has been established. It is important for researchers to further discuss the correct way for forensic medicine departments to communicate with bereaved families. (shrink)

The role of research ethics consultants in biomedical research has increased to the point that they have an advisory capacity at all research institutes. For such professionals, we have established an educational system, which includes teaching materials, training methods, and nationwide educational workshops. These workshops have served to examine the developed system’s usefulness and to provide realistic training for consultant candidates. In addition, we have used the current workshop to encourage clinical research investigators to participate. Subsequently, we examined its usefulness (...) as an opportunity to provide exposure to research ethics. In October 2019, we held a 1-day pilot workshop in Tokushima, Japan, which included a basic lecture in research ethics. During the lecture, two sets of materials were used for case discussion: case 1, covering issues related to a clinical trial, and case 2, covering issues related to human biological specimens. At the end of the workshop, a 30-item self-reporting anonymous questionnaire was provided. Of the 13 total participants, 9 were clinical research investigators and related personnel, while 6 had no direct intention to act as consultants. Respondents indicated that case 2 was more difficult than case 1. However, both cases were generally accepted as educational materials; thus, satisfaction was expressed in relation to both. As the evaluations of the cases were generally positive, we will further examine the usefulness of participation in the workshop in the cultivation of research ethics in the investigator community. (shrink)