ABSTRACT This article presents an overview of the Portuguese transposition of the European Directive on Good Clinical Practice (2001/20/e) concerning scientific and academic debates on bioethics and clinical investigation. Since the Directive was transposed into Portuguese law by its National Assembly, the bureaucracy of clinical trials has been ever more complex. Despite demands for swift application processes by the Pharmaceutical industry, supported by the European Parliament, the Directive's transcription to the national law has not always delivered the (...) expected outcome. However, this has led to an increased number of applications for clinical trials in Portuguese hospitals. In this article I revise bioethical publications and decree‐laws enabling an informed appraisal of the anxieties and prospects for the implementation of the clinical trials Directive in Portugal. This article also places the European Directive in the field of sociology of bioethics, arguing that Portuguese bioethical institutions differ from those of the US, and also from Northern European counterparts. The main divergence is that those people in Portugal who claim expertise in ‘legal’ bioethics do not dominate either the bureaucratic structure of research or ethics committees for health. Even experts in the applied ethics field now claim that ‘professional bioethicists do not exist’. The recent creation of a national Ethics Committee for Clinical Investigation (CEIC) in line with the European Directive on Good Clinical Practice (GCP) will not change the present imbalance between different professional jurisdictions in the national bioethical debate in Portugal. (shrink)

Many guidelines and commentators endorse the view that clinical research is ethically acceptable only when it has social value, in the sense of collecting data which might be used to improve health. A version of this social value requirement is included in the Declaration of Helsinki and the Nuremberg Code, and is codified in many national research regulations. At the same time, there have been no systematic analyses of why social value is an ethical requirement for (...) clinical research. Recognizing this gap in the literature, recent articles by Alan Wertheimer and David Resnik argue that the extant justifications for the social value requirement are unpersuasive. Both authors conclude, contrary to almost all current guidelines and regulations, that it can be acceptable across a broad range of cases to conduct clinical research which is known prospectively to have no social value. The present article assesses this conclusion by critically evaluating the ethical and policy considerations relevant to the claim that clinical research must have social value. This analysis supports the standard view that social value is an ethical requirement for the vast majority of clinical research studies and should be mandated by applicable guidelines and policies. (shrink)

The last half century has been characterized by a growth in the regulation of clinical research nationally and internationally. Each area of research on human subjects has been the subject of a vast academic literature and extensive public policy debate, from issues of informed consent to that of regulatory structures. Professor Bernard Dickens has provided an outstanding contribution to this debate internationally through his many innovative and incisive papers in this area. This paper provides an English lawyer’s (...) perspective upon the increasing regulation of clinical research practices and asks – does regulation equate with effective rights protection? From Nuremberg onwards, there has been concern to ensure that research practices are ethical and in accordance with legal principles. So, for example, there have been statements such as the Declaration of Helsinki, which was initially produced in 1964. In the European context in particular, notably influential statements have been the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been followed by the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and, more recently, a Draft Additional Protocol on medical research. (shrink)

The last half century has been characterized by a growth in the regulation of clinical research nationally and internationally. Each area of research on human subjects has been the subject of a vast academic literature and extensive public policy debate, from issues of informed consent to that of regulatory structures. Professor Bernard Dickens has provided an outstanding contribution to this debate internationally through his many innovative and incisive papers in this area. This paper provides an English lawyer’s (...) perspective upon the increasing regulation of clinical research practices and asks – does regulation equate with effective rights protection? From Nuremberg onwards, there has been concern to ensure that research practices are ethical and in accordance with legal principles. So, for example, there have been statements such as the Declaration of Helsinki, which was initially produced in 1964. In the European context in particular, notably influential statements have been the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been followed by the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and, more recently, a Draft Additional Protocol on medical research. (shrink)

Nanomedicine promises unprecedented innovations for diagnosis and therapy as well as for predicting and preventing diseases. On the other hand it raises fears linked to new and unknown characteristics of nanoscale materials. Both, promises and fears, are closely linked to the realm of uncertainty. To a large extent it is currently not known which expectations could become reality and which suspected adverse events might come true. Medicine is quite familiar with decision-making under uncertainty. Rules and regulations for clinical (...) research have been developed to reduce possible harm for research participants without abandoning necessary investigations. Here we examine whether clinical research trials of nanomedicine need new regulations and conclude that the established rules should suffice. (shrink)

At least since the seminal work of the (US) National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in the 1970s, a fundamental distinction between research and practice has underwritten both conceptual work in research ethics and regulations governing research involving human subjects. Notwithstanding its undoubted historical importance, I believe the distinction is problematic because it misrepresents clinical inquiry. In this essay, I aim to clarify the character of clinical (...) inquiry by identifying crucial contextual constraints on justification constitutive of clinical science. This analysis shows that, from an epistemological point of view, clinical research and clinical practice are not sharply distinct but intimately intertwined. This result is important in its own right—an enriched understanding of the epistemology of clinical research is valuable in and of itself. But this result is also important because it has profound implications for the ethics of human subjects research. (shrink)

Jansen and Wall suggest a new way of defending hard paternalism in clinical research. They argue that non-therapeutic research exposing people to more than minimal risk should be banned on egalitarian grounds: in preventing poor decision-makers from making bad decisions, we will promote equality of welfare. We argue that their proposal is flawed for four reasons.First, the idea of poor decision-makers is much more problematic than Jansen and Wall allow. Second, pace Jansen and Wall, it may be (...) practicable for regulators to uncover the values that a potential research participant holds when agreeing to enter a research project, so their claim that we must ban such research projects for all if we are to ban them for poor decision-makers looks to be unmotivated. Third, there seem to be cases where the liberty to enter the sort of research project Jansen and Wall discuss is morally weighty, and arguably should outweigh concerns of egalitarian distribution. Fourth, banning certain types of research, which seem on the face of it to offer an unfavourable risk-benefit ratio, would have unwelcome consequences for all clinical research, which Jansen and Wall do not recognize. (shrink)

Persons with serious and disabling medical conditions have traveled abroad in search of stem cell treatments in recent years. However, weak or nonexistent oversight systems in some countries provide insufficient patient protections against unproven stem cell treatments, raising concerns about exposure to harm and exploitation. The present article, the first of two, describes and analyzes stem cell tourism in Russia and India and addresses several scientific/medical, ethical, and policy issues raised by the provision of unproven stem cell-based treatments within them. (...) The distinction between treatment based on proven clinical research and "innovative treatment" is addressed and the authors conclude that the innovations at issue constitute neither. Regulatory measures need to be developed or strengthened in accord with internationally accepted standards in such countries to protect those seeking stem cell treatments. (shrink)

Innovative practice occurs when a clinician provides something new, untested, or nonstandard to a patient in the course of clinical care, rather than as part of a research study. Commentators have noted that patients engaged in innovative practice are at significant risk of suffering harm, exploitation, or autonomy violations. By creating a pathway for harmful or nonbeneficial interventions to spread within medical practice without being subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation, innovative practice poses similar risks to the wider community (...) of patients and society as a whole. Given these concerns, how should we control and oversee innovative practice, and in particular, how should we coordinate innovative practice and clinical research? In this article, I argue that an ethical approach to overseeing innovative practice must encourage the early transition to rigorous clinical research without delaying or deferring the development of beneficial innovations or violating the autonomy rights of clinicians and their patients. (shrink)

Placebo-controlled trials are held by many, including regulators at agencies like the United States Food and Drug Administration, to be the gold standard in the assessment of new medical interventions. Yet the use of placebo controls in clinical trials has been the focus of considerable controversy. In this two-part article, we challenge a number of common beliefs concerning the value of placebo controls. Part I critiques statistical and other scientific justifications for the use of placebo controls in clinical (...) research. The continued use of placebo controls in clinical trials on diseases for which accepted treatment exists raises equally important ethical, legal, and regulatory issues for which various justifications have been given. Defense of this practice relies on normative as well as empirical myths.In their attack on the prevailing use of placebo controls, Kenneth Rothman and Karin Michels emphasize that this practice stands in violation of the World Medical Association's guidelines on the ethics of human experimentation, most commonly known as the Helsinki Declaration. (shrink)

The ethical standards that regulate clinical research have multiple rationales. Among them is the need to protect potential subjects from making imprudent decisions, which extends beyond the soft paternalistic concern to protect people from making uninformed decisions to participate in trials. This article argues that a plausible risk/benefit restriction on clinical trials is presumptively justified by hard paternalism, which in turn is supported by a deeper fairness-based rationale. This presumptive case for hard paternalism in research is (...) not defeated by the alleged right to participate in clinical trials, by concerns about insult or status, by the need to conduct early phase trials that promise little to no benefit to participants, or by the recognition that some potential subjects are altruistically motivated. (shrink)

BackgroundThere is ambiguity with regard to what counts as an acceptable level of risk in clinical research in pregnant women and there is no input from stakeholders relative to such research risks. The aim of our paper was to explore what stakeholders who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women deem an acceptable level of risk for pregnant women in clinical research. Accordingly, we used the APOSTEL VI study, (...) a low-risk obstetrical randomised controlled trial, as a case-study.MethodsWe conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed healthcare professionals, Research Ethics Committee members and regulators who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women, in addition to pregnant women recruited for the APOSTEL VI case-study in the Netherlands.ResultsThree themes characterise the way stakeholders view risks in clinical research in pregnant women in general. Additionally, one theme characterises the way healthcare professionals and pregnant women view risks with respect to the case-study specifically. First, ideas on what constitutes an acceptable level of risk in general ranged from a preference for zero risk for the foetus up to minimal risk. Second, the desirability of clinical research in pregnant women in general was questioned altogether. Third, stakeholders proposed to establish an upper limit of risk in potentially beneficial clinical research in pregnant women in order to protect the foetus and the pregnant woman from harm. Fourth and finally, the case-study illustrates that healthcare professionals’ individual perception of risk may influence recruitment.ConclusionsHealthcare professionals, RECs, regulators and pregnant women are all risk adverse in practice, possibly explaining the continuing underrepresentation of pregnant women in clinical research. Determining the acceptable levels of risk on a universal level alone is insufficient, because the individual perception of risk also influences behaviour towards pregnant women in clinical research. Therefore, bioethicists and researchers might be interested in changing the perception of risk, which could be achieved by education and awareness about the actual benefits and harms of inclusion and exclusion of pregnant women. (shrink)

Discussions on the ethics and regulation of clinical research have a great deal to say about the responsibilities of investigators, sponsors, research institutions and institutional review boards, but very little about the responsibilities of research participants. In this article, we discuss the responsibilities of participants in clinical research. We argue that competent adult participants are responsible for complying with study requirements and fulfilling other obligations they undertake when they make an informed choice to enrol (...) in a study. These responsibilities are based on duties related to promise-keeping, avoiding harm to one's self or others, beneficence and reciprocity. Investigators and research staff should inform participants about their responsibilities during the consent process, and should stress the importance of fulfilling study requirements. They should address any impediments to compliance, and they may provide participants with financial incentives for meeting study requirements. In very rare cases, coercive measures may be justified to prevent immanent harm to others resulting from non-compliance with study requirements. (shrink)

Clinical research is thought to be ethically problematic and is subject to extensive regulation and oversight. Despite frequent endorsement of this view, there has been almost no systematic evaluation of why clinical research might be ethically problematic. As a result, it is difficult to determine whether the regulations to which clinical research is subject address the ethical concerns it raises. Commentators who consider this question at all tend to assume that clinical (...) class='Hi'>research is ethically problematic because it exposes some individuals to risks for the benefit of others. Yet, many other activities that expose some individuals to risks for the benefit of others are not subject to extensive regulation and oversight. This difference raises the question of whether clinical research is distinct from these activities in normatively relevant ways and, if so, what implications this difference (or differences) has for how clinical research should be regulated and conducted. The present manuscript attempts to answer this question by comparing clinical research to two other activities that expose some individuals to risks for the benefit of others. This comparison highlights an aspect of clinical research which has received relatively little attention, namely, the active role investigators play in exposing subjects to risks. I argue that this aspect explains much of the ethical concern expressed regarding clinical research. I end by considering the normative significance of this feature and the implications it has for how clinical research should be regulated and conducted. (shrink)

Clinical research ethics consultation has emerged in the last 15 years as a service to those involved in the conduct of clinical research who face challenging issues for which more than one course of action may be justified. To respond to a growing field and need for opportunities to share knowledge and experience, the Clinical Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative, established in 2014, holds monthly webinars for its 90 members to present their most challenging cases (...) to each other and engage in substantive discussion. Every year, the group selects the four most interesting cases with accompanying commentaries for publication in the American Journal of Bioethics. This timely book brings together these cases and commentaries under a range of common themes for the first time, creating a permanent collection in book format that encourages and supports readers to gain a better understanding of the ethical challenges that they may face, and providing them with a convenient and reflective resource to reference in their own deliberations. Key Features- Comprehensive collection of cases and commentaries, chosen to reflect the range of issues faced by clinical researchers and oversight committees and illustrate the diversity of analysis that can arise. Supplemented by short introductions to each section. Focus on ethical rather than regulatory issues. Essential Reading for graduate students in bioethics and post-doctoral bioethics fellows, and useful for all participants in training grants that are funded by either NIH or NSF Presenting challenging cases to stimulate reflection, the book provides invaluable guidance to clinicians in training and in practice and to investigators, bioethics consultants, regulators, and oversight bodies. (shrink)

The increasing complexity of human subjects research and its oversight has prompted researchers, as well as institutional review boards, to have a forum in which to discuss challenging or novel ethical issues not fully addressed by regulations. Research ethics consultation services provide such a forum. In this article, we rely on the experiences of a national Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative that collected more than 350 research ethics consultations in a repository and published 18 challenging cases (...) with accompanying ethical commentaries to highlight four contexts in which REC can be a valuable resource. REC assists: 1) investigators before and after the regulatory review; 2) investigators, IRBs, and other research administrators facing challenging and novel ethical issues; 3) IRBs and investigators with the increasing challenges of informed consent and risk/benefit analysis; and 4) in providing flexible and collaborative assistance to overcome study hurdles, mediate conflicts within a team, or directly engage with research participants. Institutions that have established, or plan to establish, REC services should work to raise the visibility of their service and engage in open communication with existing clinical ethics consult services as well as the IRB. While the IRB system remains the foundation for the ethical review of research, REC can be a valuable service for investigators, regulators, and research participants aligned with the goal of supporting ethical research. (shrink)

There is ambiguity with regard to what counts as an acceptable level of risk in clinical research in pregnant women and there is no input from stakeholders relative to such research risks. The aim of our paper was to explore what stakeholders who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women deem an acceptable level of risk for pregnant women in clinical research. Accordingly, we used the APOSTEL VI study, (...) a low-risk obstetrical randomised controlled trial, as a case-study. We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed healthcare professionals, Research Ethics Committee members and regulators who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women, in addition to pregnant women recruited for the APOSTEL VI case-study in the Netherlands. Three themes characterise the way stakeholders view risks in clinical research in pregnant women in general. Additionally, one theme characterises the way healthcare professionals and pregnant women view risks with respect to the case-study specifically. First, ideas on what constitutes an acceptable level of risk in general ranged from a preference for zero risk for the foetus up to minimal risk. Second, the desirability of clinical research in pregnant women in general was questioned altogether. Third, stakeholders proposed to establish an upper limit of risk in potentially beneficial clinical research in pregnant women in order to protect the foetus and the pregnant woman from harm. Fourth and finally, the case-study illustrates that healthcare professionals’ individual perception of risk may influence recruitment. Healthcare professionals, RECs, regulators and pregnant women are all risk adverse in practice, possibly explaining the continuing underrepresentation of pregnant women in clinical research. Determining the acceptable levels of risk on a universal level alone is insufficient, because the individual perception of risk also influences behaviour towards pregnant women in clinical research. Therefore, bioethicists and researchers might be interested in changing the perception of risk, which could be achieved by education and awareness about the actual benefits and harms of inclusion and exclusion of pregnant women. (shrink)

United States federal regulations for pediatric research with no prospect of direct benefit restrict institutional review board (IRB) approval to procedures presenting: 1) no more than "minimal risk" (§ 45CFR46.404); or 2) no more than a "minor increase over minimal risk" if the research is commensurate with the subjects' previous or expected experiences and intended to gain vitally important information about the child's disorder or condition (§ 45CFR46.406) (DHHS 2001). During the 25 years since their adoption, these (...) regulations have helped IRBs balance subject protections with the pursuit of scientific knowledge to advance children's welfare. At the same time, inconsistency in IRB application of these regulations to pediatric protocols has been widespread, in part because of the ambiguity of the regulatory language. During the past decade, three federally-charged committees have addressed these ambiguities: 1) the National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee (NHRPAC) (Washington, DC), 2) the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Children (Washington, DC); and 3) the United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Advisory Committee for Human Research Protections (SACHRP) (Washington, DC). The committees have reached similar conclusions on interpretation of language within regulations § § 45CFR46.404 and 406; these conclusions are remarkably consistent with recent international recommendations and those of the original National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1977) report from which current regulations are based. Drawing on the committees' public reports, this article identifies the ethical issues posed by ambiguities in regulatory language, summarizes the committees' deliberations, and calls for a national consensus on recommended criteria. (shrink)

The regulation of narcotic medications used in narcotic addiction treatment is unique in medical therapeutics. Physicians who want to use narcotics for this indication must obtain a separate annual registration from the Drug Enforcement Administration. Annual registration is contingent on compliance with both the DEA's security regulations as well as treatment regulations jointly promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.During the last decade, a number of events have occurred that persuaded NIDA (...) that it is time to reevaluate the current method by which the Department of Health and Human Services regulates methadone treatment. As a result of research during the past twenty years, we have learned about the effective components of methadone treatment. In comparison to other available treatment modalities for opioid addiction, methadone treatment is uniquely effective when administered by well-trained medical staffs. (shrink)

: Protection of human subjects from investigators' conflicts of interest is critical to the integrity of clinical investigation. Personal financial conflicts of interest are addressed by university policies, professional society guidelines, publication standards, and government regulation, but "intrinsic conflicts of interest"—conflicts of interest inherent in all clinical research—have received relatively less attention. Such conflicts arise in all clinical research endeavors as a result of the tension among professionals' responsibilities to their research and to their (...) patients and both academic and financial incentives. These conflicts should be disclosed to research subjects and managed as assiduously as are financial conflicts of interest. (shrink)

The revelation that data obtained for the US-based National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) from subjects enrolled at Hôpital Saint-Luc in Montreal was falsified has eroded public trust in research. Institutions can educate researchers and help prevent unethical research practices by establishing procedures to monitor research involving human subjects. Research monitoring encompasses four categories of activity: annual reviews of continuing research, monitoring of informed consent, monitoring of adherence to approved protocols and monitoring of (...) the integrity of data. The authors describe characteristics of research projects that may call for monitoring procedures in each category. The form taken by such monitoring depends on the nature of the protocol. Although appropriate research monitoring requires substantial investment of personnel and financial resources, it is required under guidelines regulating research involving human subjects in Canada. Research monitoring is a step forward in re-establishing public confidence in medical research. (shrink)

The attitudes of women patients with cancer were explored when they were invited to participate in one of three randomised trials that included chemotherapy at two university centres and a satellite centre. Fourteen patients participating in and 15 patients declining trials were interviewed. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Most patients voiced positive attitudes towards clinical research, believing that trials are necessary for further medical development, and most spontaneously argued that participation is a moral obligation. Most (...) trial decliners, however, described a radical change in focus as they faced the actual personal choice. Almost no one got an impression of clinical equipoise between treatments in the trials, and most patients expressed discomfort with randomisation. A patient’s choice to participate was mainly determined by whether the primary focus was on treatment effect or on adverse effects. Both knowledge about and feelings towards trials originated mostly from the media, although paradoxically the media were largely seen as untrustworthy. Mistrust was shown towards the pharmaceutical industry, and although most patients originally trusted that doctors primarily pursued the interest of patients, they did not trust the adequacy of doctors or industry in maintaining self-regulation. Thus, public control measures were judged to be essential. (shrink)

Background. Responsible clinical research drives the advancement of healthcare. Despite tremendous improvements in the globalresearch and development environment since the 1950s, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are often left behind. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, operational, social, ethical and regulatory challenges in LMICs make it difficult for researchers to conduct clinical studies in those settings in line with international requirements. Secondly, many people living in low-resource settings distrust research because some past studies have not (...) benefited the participants or the communities involved.Objectives. To present the consensus recommendations by a Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) Working Group on how to advance good-quality, ethical clinical research in resource-limited settings.Methods. CIOMS convened a Working Group of senior scientists from drug regulatory authorities, the pharmaceutical industry, publicprivate partnerships for product development, and academia.Results. This article summarises the Working Group’s report.Conclusion. The report recommendations can foster the creation of a more enabling ecosystem for clinical research and promotecollaboration between policymakers, regulators, researchers and funders. (shrink)

Subpart B of 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46 (CFR) identifies the criteria according to which research involving pregnant women, human fetuses, and neonates can be conducted ethically in the United States. As such, pregnant women and fetuses fall into a category requiring “additional protections,” often referred to as “vulnerable populations.” The CFR does not define vulnerability, but merely gives examples of vulnerable groups by pointing to different categories of potential research subjects needing additional protections. In (...) this paper, I assess critically the role of this categorization of pregnant women involved in research as “vulnerable,” both as separate entities and in combination with the fetuses they carry. In particular, I do three things: (1) demonstrate that pregnant women qua pregnancy are either not “vulnerable” according to any meaningful definition of that term or that such vulnerability is irrelevant to her status as a research participant; (2) argue that while a fetus may be vulnerable in terms of dependency, this categorization does not equate to the vulnerability of the pregnant woman; and (3) suggest that any vulnerability that appends to women is precisely the result of federal regulations and dubious public perceptions about pregnant women. I conclude by demonstrating how this erroneous characterization of pregnant women as “vulnerable” and its associated protections have not only impeded vital research for pregnant women and their fetuses, but have also negatively affected the inclusion of all women in clinical research. (shrink)

The regulation of narcotic medications used in narcotic addiction treatment is unique in medical therapeutics. Physicians who want to use narcotics for this indication must obtain a separate annual registration from the Drug Enforcement Administration. Annual registration is contingent on compliance with both the DEA's security regulations as well as treatment regulations jointly promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.During the last decade, a number of events have occurred that persuaded NIDA (...) that it is time to reevaluate the current method by which the Department of Health and Human Services regulates methadone treatment. As a result of research during the past twenty years, we have learned about the effective components of methadone treatment. In comparison to other available treatment modalities for opioid addiction, methadone treatment is uniquely effective when administered by well-trained medical staffs. (shrink)

Shared views regarding the moral respect which is owed to children in family life are used as a guide in determining the moral permissibility of nontherapeutic clinical research procedures involving children. The comparison suggests that it is not appropriate to seek assent from the preadolescent child. The analogy with interventions used in family life is similarly employed to specify the permissible limit of risk to which children may be exposed in nontherapeutic research procedures. The analysis indicates that (...) recent writers misconceive how certain moral principles, such as respect for personal autonomy, require us to act toward children. The results are also used to assess proposed federal regulations on research with children. (shrink)

Regulators rely on clinical trials for drug approval and labeling decisions. Health systems and clinicians rely on the evidence from trials to determine treatment, and patients rely on it to decide which courses of care to undertake. Many of these stakeholders presume that the careful review of individual studies is enough to address the ethical and scientific questions that arise in clinical trials. In what follows, however, we demonstrate that explicit consideration of trial portfolios—series of trials that are (...) interrelated by a common set of objectives—is crucial. the ethical acceptability and evidentiary probity of individual trials can change depending on the characteristics of the portfolios in which they are embedded. Second, how trial portfolios are composed, how well they are coordinated, and how efficiently they use information determines the balance of risks and benefits they present as well as their different prospects for generating socially valuable information; these three factors also raise distinct questions of justice. (shrink)

Background:Medical research on children has increased in the last 20 years. International ethical regulations for conducting clinical research on children may not pertain to Muslim communities wher...

Regulation of stem cell research in Europe should not take place without public and scholarly inputThe European Union has, at present, no jurisdiction over research carried out in the member states, or concerning the “ethics” of member states. This does not, however, mean that decisions made by the European institutions cannot influence such matters greatly.There has recently been a lot of focus on the decision not to fund embryonic stem cell research during the first year of the (...) 6th framework programme , but behind the scenes a much more important and wide ranging set of regulations are being prepared.The European Commission has prepared a draft directive on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, storage, and distribution of human tissues and cells.1 The purpose of this directive was originally to “ensure the quality and safety of human tissues and cells for clinical use” in the EU. This is clearly a laudable objective, fully in line with the EU’s jurisdiction in consumer protection and public health.During the intricate processes of political …. (shrink)

This paper examines the culture, the dynamics and the financial underpinnings that determine how medical research is being conducted on children in the United States. Children have increasingly become the subject of experiments that offer them no potential direct benefit but expose them to risks of harm and pain. A wide range of such experiments will be examined, including a lethal heartburn drug test, the experimental insertion of a pacemaker, an invasive insulin infusion experiment, and a fenfluramine "violence prediction" (...) experiment. Emphasis, however, is given to psychoactive drug tests because of the inherent ethical and diagnostic problems involved in the absence of any objective, verifiable diagnostic tool. Effort is made to provide readers comprehensive reference sources to evidence-based reports about the serious risks these drugs pose for adults and children so that the reader may judge whether the benefits (if any) outweigh the risks for children. The first ethical issue raised by these experiments is: did the severity of illness in these children justify their exposure to short and long-term risks? The ethics of the experiments will be evaluated by referring to existing codes of medical research ethics-the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the federal Code of Regulations. The thirteen cases presented will demonstrate that children are being used in ever more speculative experiments, often in the absence of a therapeutic intent, but a significant chance for causing harm and / or discomfort. Some of the experiments were designed to explore the mechanisms of pathology and pharmacological interventions, or the response of neurological brain receptors to chemical provocation ("challenge"). Others were designed to test the safety or efficacy of new drugs, even to test these drugs on healthy children who were hypothesized to be "at risk." Children and adolescents have been subjected to "forced dose titration" experiments that induced a spectrum of severe adverse effects, including insomnia, extreme restlessness, agitation, (akathisia) and self-injurious behavior. FDA reports show that suicide is a significant issue in psychotropic drug trials-in pediatric trials the problem is even greater. The paper aims to demonstrate how the enactment of the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (incorporated into the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, FDAMA), set in motion a radical shift in public policy by providing huge financial incentives to pharmaceutical companies to test new or patented drugs in children. Federal policy shifted from one aimed at protecting children by setting limits on permissible research risks, to a policy aimed at broadening the inclusion of children as test subjects. It will be shown how the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services lifted regulatory restrictions to permit research involving greater than minimal risk to be conducted on healthy children, claiming that all children are potentially "at risk" of a future condition. Children were in this way deprived of regulatory protections. An argument will be made that the approval of nontherapeutic, harmful experiments-such as exposure of toddlers to lead poison-under the current gate keeping system raises serious doubts about the sustainability of institutional review boards (IRBs) as protectors of human research subjects. Children, who are precluded from exercising the adult human's right to informed consent, are being exploited as commodities for commercial ends. It is the position of the author that nothing less than the enactment of a federal law mandating a radical overhaul of the current research review system, with independent checks and balances, will provide children the legal protections they need. Ten specific recommendations are offered to protect children from harmful experiments. (shrink)

Aims and background: The present work assessed the impact of two decrees on ethics committees in Italy, aimed at bringing the national laws on the conduct of clinical trials into line with the rest of the EC, and regulating and facilitating not-for-profit research.Material and methods: Prospectively collected data from an Italian multicentre study were examined with respect to the ethics review process. Administrative and time elements of the review process were audited. Main outcome measures were time between the (...) application submission and the ethics committee definitive opinion, type and number of application submission forms, number of ethics committees that refused fee exemption, and time between the ethics committee approval and the administrative authorisation.Results: A total of 134 local research ethics committees were approached. Application submission procedures and application forms varied greatly; paper submission was mandatory. The median time from submission to approval was 72 days. Only two LRECs refused the fee exemption. The median time from LREC approval to administrative agreement was 50 days and only 9.6% of local authorities came to a verbal agreement with the sponsor.Conclusions: Italian LRECs are still not sufficiently efficient in complying with the Directive 2001/20/EC requirement . Better coordination of LRECs work is needed although the optimal level of coordination between them is still not known. In the meantime, national guidelines are needed concerning the application of Directive 2001/20/EC. The behaviour of Italian LRECs towards not-for-profit research was excellent although only the fee exemption was requested. (shrink)

BackgroundWe describe our experience from a multi-national application of a European Union-funded research-driven paediatric trial (DEEP-2, EudraCT 2012-000353-31; NCT01825512). This paper aims to evaluate the impact of the local and national rules on the trial authorisation process in European and non-European countries. National/local provisions and procedures, number of Ethics Committees and Competent Authorities to be addressed, documentation required, special provisions for the paediatric population, timelines for completing the authorisation process and queries received were collected; compliance with the European provisions (...) were evaluated. Descriptive analysis, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test and General Linear Model analysis were used to determine factors potentially influencing the timelines. The Cluster Analysis procedure was used to identify homogenous groups of cases.ResultThe authorisation process was completed in 7.7 to 53.8 months in European countries and in 17.1 to 27.1 months in non-European countries. The main factors influencing these timelines were the requests for changes/clarifications in European countries and the different national legislations in non-European countries.ConclusionThis work confirms that the procedures and requirements for the clinical trial application of a paediatric trial are different. In the European Union, the timeframes for submission were generally harmonised but longer. In non-European countries, delays were caused by national dispositions but the entire authorisation process resulted faster with less requests from ECs/cas. The upcoming application of Regulation (EU) 536/2014 is expected to harmonise practices in Europe and possibly outside. Networks on paediatric research acting at international level will be crucial in this effort. (shrink)

In emergency research, obtaining informed consent can be problematic. Research to develop and improve treatments for patients admitted to hospital with life-threatening and debilitating conditions is much needed yet the issue of research without consent (RWC) raises concerns about unethical practices and the loss of individual autonomy. Consistent with the policy and practice turn towards greater patient and public involvement in health care decisions, in the US, Canada and EU, guidelines and legislation implemented to protect patients and (...) facilitate acute research with adults who are unable to give consent have been developed with little involvement of the lay public. This paper reviews research examining public opinion regarding RWC for research in emergency situations, and whether the rules and regulations permitting research of this kind are in accordance with the views of those who ultimately may be the most affected. (shrink)

Clinical trials in emergency situations present unique challenges, because they involve enrolling individuals who lack capacity to consent in the context of acute illness or injury. The US Department of Health and Human Services and Food and Drug Administration regulations allowing an Exception from Informed Consent in these circumstances contain requirements for community consultation, public disclosure and restrictions on study risks and benefits. In this paper, we analyse an issue raised in the regulations that has received little (...) attention or analysis but is ethically complex. This challenge is when to solicit and honour objections to EFIC trial enrolment, including from non-legally appointed representatives. We address novel questions involving whose objections should be honoured, what level of understanding is necessary for objections to be considered valid and how hard investigators should work to offer an opportunity to object. We present a set of criteria that provide conceptual and practical guidance. We argue that objections should be honoured if they undermine one of the key assumptions that allows for the permissibility of EFIC trials: that individuals would likely not object to enrolment based on their values or preferences. We then clarify the practical implications of this approach through examination of three cases of refusal in an EFIC study. (shrink)

The temptation in clinical research to sacrifice the interests, the health, and sometimes even the lives of research subjects to the advancement of the interests of science and society, and to the advancement of researchers' own careers, is a hardy weed which can grow anywhere. Pursuant to a commendable EU Directive a new law, the Medicines for Human Use Regulations 2004 was brought into effect in the UK. That law makes it illegal for anyone to start (...) a clinical trial unless a Research Ethics Committee has expressed a favourable opinion upon its protocol. It gives to Research Ethics Committee members the legal power, and imposes upon them the legal duty, to protect research subjects from those who have strong financial and other temptations to mistreat them. The new law specifies what standard of protection the Research Ethics Committee members shall insist upon. The Royal College of Physicians, which has been reluctant to declare its own conflicting interests, in 2007 issued some guidelines which it hopes Research Ethics Committee members will follow. Those Guidelines on the practice of ethics committees in medical research with human participants urge Research Ethics Committee members to express a favourable opinion of clinical trials which they believe, for example, do not give to research subjects the protection the new law demands. But Research Ethics Committee members have a clear legal duty not to follow any course of conduct calculated to subvert the excellent and necessary 2004 law. (shrink)

Background: Biomedical research nowadays is increasingly carried out in multinational and multicenter settings. Due to disparate national regulations on various ethical aspects, such as informed consent, there is the risk of ethical compromises when involving human subjects in research. Although the Declaration of Helsinki is the point of reference for ethical conduct of research on humans, national normative requirements may diverge from its provisions. The aim of this research is to examine requirements on informed consent (...) in biomedical research in Germany, Poland, and Russia to determine how each national regulatory framework relates to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. Methods: For this analysis, we conducted a search of the legal databases “Gesetze im Internet” for Germany, “Internetowy System Aktow Prawnych” for Poland, and “ГAPAHT – Garant” for Russia. The search was complemented by a review of secondary literature contained in the databases Google Scholar, PubMed, Polish National Library, and eLibrary ru. We have identified 21 normative regulations containing provisions on informed consent in clinical research in all three countries. The content of these documents was systematically categorized and analyzed. Results: The normative framework in all three countries shows a strong commitment towards the core ethical principles of research envisaged in the Declaration of Helsinki. Nevertheless, provisions on informed consent vary between these three countries. The differences range from the method and language in which information should be provided, through the amount of information required to be disclosed, to the form of documenting consent or withdrawal. In the case of research on vulnerable groups, these differences are particularly visible. Conclusions: The identified differences can negatively impact the ethical conduct of international clinical studies. Attention needs to be paid that flexibilities within national regulations are not misused to undermine the protection of research subjects. Achieving global or regional legislative harmonization might prove impossible. Such lack of legal consensus reinforces the significance of the international ethical agreements. (shrink)

Background Regulations on research ethics in France have evolved considerably over the past four years: the implementation of the Jardé law and of the General Data Protection Regulations have changed the landscape of research ethics for research involving or not involving human persons. In a context of creation of an Institutional Review Board at the University of Bordeaux, France, we sought to explore research ethics practices and perceptions in the medical community of our University (...) Hospital. Methods A short questionnaire was sent to all physicians of the University Hospital of Bordeaux. The questionnaire included closed questions and main topics were: physicians’ education in research ethics, ethics practices concerning researches non implying human persons, and physicians’ perceptions about current regulations. Results 86 questionnaires were sent back. If a majority of physicians have validated Good Clinical Practices trainings, there was a low rate of specific training on fundamental references in research ethics and a high proportion of responders do not consider themselves as educated in research ethics after completion of GCPs. Regulations on research ethics have many implications on medical research, especially by inducing changes in protocols in order to alleviate ethical requirements. Malpractices were acknowledged like false mention of positive opinion from an ethics committee. If If a majority of responders considers regulations as a positive answer to research ethics, a large majority considers it as a constraint and a complexification of research process. For 58%, regulations in research ethics are perceived as a hindrance for research initiatives. Conclusion Because of their impact on research process, regulations seem to constitute a scarecrow for physicians. Lack of training, bad representations and questionable practices highlight the need to improve education and to propose concrete guidance for medical researchers. (shrink)

Setting reasonable and fair limits of emergency research acceptability in ethical norms and legal regulations must still adhere to the premise of well-being of the research subject over the interests of science and society. Informed consent of emergency patients to be enrolled in clinical trials is a particularly difficult issue due to impaired competencies of patients’ to give consent, short diagnostic and therapeutic windows, as well as the requirement to provide detailed information to participants. Whereas the (...) Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice guideline, Additional Protocol to the European Bioethical Convention concerning Biomedical Research, as well as appropriate regulations adopted by the Food and Drugs Administration (USA) allow waivers from participants’ consent or deferred consent for emergency research, the regulations of most European Community countries following the Clinical Trial Directive (2001/20/EC) do not give space for a deferred consent or a waiver from consent for adult patients (unless surrogate consent is made use of). This is even more confusing in case of Poland, where conflicting regulations on a waiver from a participant’s consent in emergency research exist and the regulations on surrogate consent of temporarily incompetent adults are too restrictive and authorise only the guardianship courts to consent, which is not or hardly feasible in practice. European Community regulations need to be amended to allow for implementation of the deferred consent or waivers from consent for emergency research in order to enable ethical research of emergency conditions that should become a large part of important public health priorities. (shrink)

Ethical Considerations When Preparing a Clinical Research Protocol, Second Edition, provides a foundation for improving skills in the understanding of ethical requirements in the design and conduct of clinical research. It includes practical information on ethical principles in clinical research, how to design appropriate research studies, how to consent and assent documents, how to get protocols approved, special populations, confidentiality issues, and the reporting of adverse events. The book's valuable appendix includes a listing (...) of web resources about research ethics, along with a glossary, making it an invaluable resource for scientists collaborating in clinical trials, physician investigators, clinical research fellows, and more. Walks investigators and trainees through the identification of the ethical aspects of each section of a clinical research protocol Includes case histories that illustrate key points Contains information on conducting clinical research within the pharmaceutical industry Includes internet resources and worldwide web addresses for important research ethics documents and regulations Contains a chapter on Study Design and Methodology that is purposely expanded to explicitly address biostatistical considerations. (shrink)

Background In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt’s new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients. Methods We conducted (...) a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws. Results On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones. Conclusion The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond. (shrink)

In April 2018, Japan’s first law regulating clinical research went into effect. The law aimed to strengthen regulations on research integrity and conflicts of interest, which had been limited under existing administrative guidelines; the law also provided stipulations for legal penalties. The scope of the new regulations, however, is limited entirely to studies that evaluate unapproved drugs or the off-label use of approved drugs, and those that receive funding from companies. On the other hand, the (...) law’s application brings numerous complications, including the establishment of new review committees, troublesome procedures for transitioning studies that are currently underway, and ambiguities about the scope of what constitutes best efforts. Thus, the change has led to substantial strain and confusion in the field. This paper offers an overview of the law and its background, and discusses its future prospects from the practical standpoint of managing ethics committees and providing research ethics support in the field. (shrink)

The prevailing “segregated model” for understanding clinical research sharply separates it from clinical care and subjects it to extensive regulations and guidelines. This approach is based on the fact that clinical research relies on procedures and methods—research biopsies, blinding, randomization, fixed treatment protocols, placebos—that pose risks and burdens to participants in order to collect data that might benefit all patients. Reliance on these methods raises the potential for exploitation and unfairness, and thus points (...) to the need for independent ethical review and more extensive informed consent. In contrast, it is widely assumed that clinical care does not raise these ethical concerns because it is designed to promote the best interests of individual patients. The segregation of clinical research from clinical care has been largely effective at protecting research participants. At the same time, this approach ignores the fact that several aspects of standard clinical care, such as clinician training and scheduling, also pose some risks and burdens to present patients for the benefit of all patients. We argue that recently proposed learning health care systems offer a way to address this concern, and better protect patients, by developing integrated review and consent procedures. Specifically, current approaches base the need for independent ethical review and more extensive informed consent on whether an activity is categorized as clinical research or clinical care. An ethically sounder approach, which could be incorporated into learning health care systems, would be to base the need for independent ethical review and more extensive informed consent on the extent to which an activity poses risks to present patients for the benefit of all patients. (shrink)

As the_number of clinical trials continues to grow, there is an increasing need for education and training in the field. The clinical research climate is less forgiving of errors and oversights and therefore requires more knowledge of regulations and requirements. This brand new edition details new laws and regulations in protecting children participating in clinical trials and how a new focus on privacy of individual health information in the United States has changed how medical (...) records are handled. Includes a manual for investigators, research nurses and study coordinators with minimal experience or who are new to clinical research An easy-to-read and open text design using ‘sidebars’ of examples and information boxes related to the main text Includes a list of Frequently Asked Questions and Glossary Duke Clinical Research Institute is the world’s largest academic clinical research organisation and is well known and respected within the clinical research community. (shrink)

Investigator and institutional financial conflicts of interest have raised concerns about both the integrity of clinical research and protecting the rights and welfare of research participants. In response, professional groups and governmental bodies have issued guidance for managing conflicts of interest to minimize their potential untoward effects. Although a variety of approaches have been offered, a common protection is to disclose financial interests in research to potential research participants as part of the recruitment and informed (...) consent process. This approach reinforces a basic norm of candor, ideally allowing potential research participants to evaluate whether financial interests should affect their decision to participate in research. Disclosure to potential research participants is viewed as an alternative to having regulators or research institutions limit or prohibit all financial interests in research, assuming that not all such interests are unacceptable. (shrink)

The relationship between the ethical standards for the governance of clinical trials and market forces can be complex and problematic. This article uses India as a case study to explore this nexus. From the mid-2000s, India became a popular destination for foreign-sponsored clinical trials. The Indian government had sought to both attract clinical trials and ensure these would be run in line with internationally accepted ethical norms. Reports of controversial medical research, however, triggered debate about the (...) robustness and suitability of India's regulatory system. In response to civil society pressure and interventions by the Supreme Court, the Indian government proposed additional measures aimed at strengthening protections for clinical trial participants. Whilst the reforms can be seen as a victory for human rights activists, they have also been criticised as being overly burdensome for sponsors. Indeed, their announcement prompted an exodus of clinical trials from India. Fearful of losing business to ‘rival’ countries, the Indian government is revisiting some of its proposals. The Indian example suggests that research ethics frameworks and national policies for economic development are increasingly intertwined. Host countries are in theory free to improve the lot of research participants, but doing so may make them appear less attractive to foreign sponsors, who can simply shift their activities to more industry-friendly jurisdictions. Although these economic pressures are unlikely to lead to a regulatory ‘race to the bottom’, they may limit host countries' ability to enact socially desirable reforms. (shrink)

Equipoise is an essential condition to justify a clinical trial. The term, describes a state of uncertainty: the data suggest but do not prove a drug's safety and efficacy The only way to resolve this uncertainty is further study In many cases, a clinical trial seems to be the most efficient way to prove safety and efficacy Equipoise is therefore not an esoteric philosophic construct applied to research ethics. Rather, since it is vital for the justification of (...) clinical trials, it is part of how society regulates medical progress. Where there is equipoise, drug design and development proceeds according to Food and Drug Administration and Health and Human Services regulations. When that equipoise ends, a drug is either not approved or becomes standard care. (shrink)

In December 2006 there was an amendment to the Medicines for Human Use Regulations 2004, the statutory instrument that translated the European directive into UK law. I will demonstrate how the European directive stifled much needed clinical research in urgent critical states whilst there is an international consensus that research in these situations be allowed. The amendments to the UK Medicines for Human Use Regulations 2004 in allowing such exception have failed to preserve the high (...) degree of respect and protection of the participants' interest as reflected in the spirit of the numerous guidelines, conventions and laws appertaining to the ethics of research in clinical emergencies. (shrink)