Search

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights. [phrase omitted] Les restrictions imposees dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pandemie de maladie a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ont eu de lourdes consequences economiques, sociales et sanitaires. Certains pays ont envisage la mise en place d'une strategie visant a alleger ces restrictions pour les individus gueris en leur octroyant un document communement appele <>. Ce document atteste qu'ils ont developpe une immunite protectrice contre le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu severe (SARS-CoV-2), le virus a l'origine de la COVID-19. LOrganisation mondiale de la Sante a deconseille l'usage du certificat d'immunite pour l'instant, car l'incertitude demeure quant a l'existence reelle d'une immunite a long terme pour ceux qui se sont remis de la COVID-19. En outre, la fiabilite des tests serologiques censes determiner si l'individu est immunise n'est pas averee. Un tel certificat ne peut etre instaure que si les seuils scientifiques en matiere d'immunite sont respectes, qu'ils soient fondes sur les anticorps ou sur d'autres criteres. Neanmoins, meme si le certificat d'immunite est desormais bien accepte par la science, il s'accompagne de nombreuses questions d'ordre ethique en ce qui concerne la limitation des libertes individuelles et la mise en reuvre. Dans le present document, nous examinons les principales considerations a prendre en compte pour garantir l'acceptabilite ethique du certificat d'immunite visant a lever les mesures de restriction pour certaines personnes durant la pandemie de COVID-19. Cette acceptabilite ethique depend non seulement de son degre de conformite a des criteres scientifiques stricts, mais aussi de son usage, des objectifs politiques ainsi que des mesures mises en place pour attenuer les prejudices potentiels et eviter d'imposer une charge disproportionnee sur les individus depourvus de certificat, ou de bafouer les droits et libertes de tout un chacun. [phrase omitted] Las medidas restrictivas impuestas a causa de la pandemia de la enfermedad coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) han tenido graves efectos sociales, economicos y sanitarios. Algunos paises han considerado la posibilidad de utilizar la certificacion de inmunidad como estrategia para flexibilizar dichas medidas para las personas que se han recuperado de la infeccion mediante la expedicion a dichas personas de un documento, comunmente denominado pasaporte de inmunidad. Este documento certifica que han desarrollado inmunidad protectora contra el coronavirus-2 del sindrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), el virus que causa la COVID-19. La Organizacion Mundial de la Salud ha desaconsejado la aplicacion de la certificacion de la inmunidad en la actualidad debido a la incertidumbre sobre si existe realmente una inmunidad a largo plazo para quienes se han recuperado de la COVID-19 y a las preocupaciones sobre la fiabilidad del metodo de prueba serologica propuesto para determinar la inmunidad. La certificacion de la inmunidad solo puede considerarse si se cumplen los umbrales cientificos para asegurar la inmunidad, ya sea que se basen en anticuerpos o en otros criterios. Sin embargo, incluso si la certificacion de la inmunidad llegara a estar bien respaldada por la ciencia, tiene muchas cuestiones eticas en cuanto a las diferentes restricciones de las libertades individuales y su proceso de aplicacion. Examinamos las principales consideraciones sobre la aceptabilidad etica de la certificacion de la inmunidad para eximir a los individuos de las medidas restrictivas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. Ademas de necesitar cumplir criterios cientificos solidos, la aceptabilidad etica de la certificacion de inmunidad depende de sus usos y objetivos de politica y de las medidas que se apliquen para reducir los posibles danos y evitar que se impongan cargas desproporcionadas a las personas que no cuenten con dicha certificacion y se violen las libertades y derechos individuales., Introduction Most countries have adopted restrictive public health measures to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). These measures include physical distancing, [...]

Pregnant and breastfeeding women (PBW) need new antiretroviral (ARV) agents and drug delivery technologies that are safe and effective for treatment and prevention of HIV. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this group is [...]

Although digital health promotion (DHP) technologies for young people are increasingly available in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there has been insufficient research investigating whether existing ethical and policy frameworks are adequate to address the challenges and promote the technological opportunities in these settings. In an effort to fill this gap and as part of a larger research project, in November 2022, we conducted a workshop in Cape Town, South Africa, entitled 'Unlocking the Potential of Digital Health Promotion for Young People in Low- and Middle-Income Countries'. The workshop brought together 25 experts from the areas of digital health ethics, youth health and engagement, health policy and promotion and technology development, predominantly from sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), to explore their views on the ethics and governance and potential policy pathways of DHP for young people in LMICs. Using the World Café method, participants contributed their views on (i) the advantages and barriers associated with DHP for youth in LMICs, (ii) the availability and relevance of ethical and regulatory frameworks for DHP and (iii) the translation of ethical principles into policies and implementation practices required by these policies, within the context of SSA. Our thematic analysis of the ensuing discussion revealed a willingness to foster such technologies if they prove safe, do not exacerbate inequalities, put youth at the center and are subject to appropriate oversight. In addition, our work has led to the potential translation of fundamental ethical principles into the form of a policy roadmap for ethically aligned DHP for youth in SSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A call for papers on the ethics of research into health and climate change is presented.

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In February 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Zika virus-related cluster of microcephaly cases and other neurological disorders reported in Brazil, a Public Health Emergency of International Concern [...]

Our international study, ‘Your DNA, Your Say’, uses film and an online cross-sectional survey to gather public attitudes toward the donation, access and sharing of DNA information. We describe the methodological approach used to create an engaging and bespoke survey, suitable for translation into many different languages. We address some of the particular challenges in designing a survey on the subject of genomics. In order to understand the significance of a genomic result, researchers and clinicians alike use external databases containing DNA and medical information from thousands of people. We ask how publics would like their ‘anonymous’ data to be used (or not to be used) and whether they are concerned by the potential risks of reidentification; the results will be used to inform policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research during pregnancy is affected by multiple ethical challenges which have not received sufficient international attention and consideration from the bioethics, clinical, and policymaking communities working together. Unresolved ethical questions about research in pregnancy have significant detrimental impacts on maternal and newborn health, in part because they inhibit an evidence base being developed on the efficacy and safety of medicines and health interventions for pregnant women. These problems are compounded in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings due to variability in regulatory provisions, the burden of maternal morbidity and mortality, and many social and cultural conventions that impact on pregnant women's ability to participate in research. Research in pregnancy was chosen as a topic for the 2016 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR) meeting, and its timeliness was all the more apparent given the 2016 Zika outbreak, which has deeply affected the Latin American region. The meeting's emerging consensus themes and outputs epitomized the core aims of the GFBR--to give voice to LMIC perspectives as a priority in dialogue about global health research ethics and to promote collaboration. In this instance, the GFBR meeting catalyzed a strong, unified drive to push researchers and policymakers to include pregnant women in research by default: given the complex nature of the topic, this is a significant achievement in addressing an important question of social justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The rise of genomic studies in Africa - not least due to projects funded under H3Africa - is associated with the development of a small number of biorepositories across Africa. For the ultimate success of these biorepositories, the creation of cell lines including those from selected H3Africa samples would be beneficial. In this paper, we map ethical challenges in the creation of cell lines.Discussion: The first challenge we identified relates to the moral status of cells living in culture. There is no doubt that cells in culture are alive, and the question is how this characteristic is relevant to ethical decision-making. The second challenge relates to the fact that cells in culture are a source of cell products and mitochondrial DNA. In combination with other technologies, cells in culture could also be used to grow human tissue. Whilst on the one hand, this feature increases the potential utility of the sample and promotes science, on the other it also enables further scientific work that may not have been specifically consented to or approved. The third challenge relates to ownership over samples, particularly in cases where cell lines are created by a biobank, and in a different country than where samples were collected. Relevant questions here concern the export of samples, approval of secondary use and the acceptability of commercialisation. A fourth challenge relates to perceptions of blood and bodily integrity, which may be particularly relevant for African research participants from certain cultures or backgrounds. Finally, we discuss challenges around informed consent and ethical review.Summary: In this paper, we sought to map the myriad of ethical challenges that need to be considered prior to making cell line creation a reality in the H3Africa project. Considering the relative novelty of this practice in Africa, such challenges will need to be considered, discussed and potentially be resolved before cell line creation in Africa becomes financially feasible and sustainable. We suggest that discussions need to be undertaken between stakeholders internationally, considering the international character of the H3Africa project. We also map out avenues for empirical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report of a joint World Health Organization (WHO) and United Kingdom (UK) Health Research Authority (HRA) workshop discusses the ethics review of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies, undertaken in the midst of the pandemic. It reviews the early efforts of international and national institutions to define the ethical standards required for COVID-19 human challenge studies and create the frameworks to ensure rigorous and timely review of these studies. This report evaluates the utility of the WHO's international guidance document Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies (WHO Key Criteria) as a practical resource for the ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies. It also assesses the UK HRA's approach to these complex ethics reviews, including the formation of a Specialist Ad-Hoc Research Ethics Committee (REC) for COVID-19 Human Challenge Studies to review all current and future COVID-19 human challenge studies. In addition, the report outlines the reflections of REC members and researchers regarding the ethics review process of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies. Finally, it considers the potential ongoing scientific justification for COVID-19 human challenge studies, particularly in relation to next-generation vaccines and optimisation of vaccination schedules. Overall, there was broad agreement that the WHO Key Criteria represented an international consensus document that played a powerful role in setting norms and delineating the necessary conditions for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies. Workshop members suggested that the WHO Key Criteria could be practically implemented to support researchers and ethics reviewers, including in the training of ethics committee members. In future, a wider audience may be engaged by the original document and potential additional materials, informed by the experiences of those involved in the first COVID-19 human challenge studies outlined in this document. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gene drive technology has been recognized for its potential to provide durable and cost-effective solutions for previously intractable problems in public health, conservation, and agriculture. In recognition of the rapid advances in this field, in 2016 the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a report making several recommendations aimed at researchers, funders, and policymakers for the safe and responsible research and development of gene drive technology. Subsequently, in 2017 sixteen global organizations self-identifying as sponsors and supporters of gene drive research became public signatories committed to the 'Principles for Gene Drive Research' which were inspired by the report's recommendations. Herein we reflect on the progress of gene drive research in relation to the ethical principles laid out and committed to by the signatories to the Principles. Our analysis indicates high levels of alignment with the Principles in the field of gene drive research. The manuscript also discusses the Gene Drive Research Forum, which had its genesis in the publication of the Principles. Discussions between participants at the latest meeting of the Forum point to the work that lies ahead for gene drive research in line with the Principles. Going forward the gene drive research community can productively focus on: i) safety and efficacy criteria for open release, ii) risk assessment frameworks and methods, iii) more downstream technical, regulatory and policy considerations for field evaluations and implementation, iv) continued transparency and developing mechanisms of accountability, and v) strengthening capacity in locales of potential release and expected drive spread., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2024 Roberts AJ et al.)

Anthropogenic climate change is unequivocal, and many of its physical health impacts have been identified, although further research is required into the mental health and wellbeing effects of climate change. There is a lack of understanding of the importance of ethics in policy-responses to health and climate change which is also linked to the lack of specific action-guiding ethical resources for researchers and practitioners. There is a marked paucity of ethically-informed health input into economic policy-responses to climate change-an area of important future work. The interaction between health, climate change and ethics is technically and theoretically complex and work in this area is fragmentary, unfocussed, and underdeveloped. Research and reflection on climate and health is fragmented and plagued by disciplinary silos and exponentially increasing literature means that the field cannot be synthesised using conventional methods. Reviewing the literature in these fields is therefore methodologically challenging. Although many of the normative challenges in responding to climate change have been identified, available theoretical approaches are insufficiently robust, and this may be linked to the lack of action-guiding support for practitioners. There is a lack of ethical reflection on research into climate change responses. Low-HDI (Human Development Index) countries are under-represented in research and publication both in the health-impacts of climate change, and normative reflection on health and climate change policy. There is a noticeable lack of ethical commentary on a range of key topics in the environmental health literature including population, pollution, transport, energy, food, and water use. Serious work is required to synthesise the principles governing policy responses to health and climate change, particularly in relation to value conflicts between the human and non-human world and the challenges presented by questions of intergenerational justice., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2023 Sheather J et al.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Authors hold sole responsibility for the views expressed in the manuscript, which may not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of the World Health Organization or the Pan American Health Organization.

As human genomics research in Africa continues to generate large amounts of data, ethical issues arise regarding how actionable genetic information is shared with research participants. The Human Heredity and Health in Africa Consortium (H3Africa) Ethics and Community Engagement Working group acknowledged the need for such guidance, identified key issues and principles relevant to genomics research in Africa and developed a practical guideline for consideration of feeding back individual genetic results of health importance in African research projects. This included a decision flowchart, providing a logical framework to assist in decision-making and planning for human genomics research projects. Although presented in the context of the H3Africa Consortium, we believe the principles described, and the decision flowchart presented here is applicable more broadly in African genomics research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Gene drive research is progressing towards future field evaluation of modified mosquitoes for malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa. While many literature sources and guidance point to the inadequacy of individual informed consent for any genetically modified mosquito release, including gene drive ones, (outside of epidemiological studies that might require blood samples) and at the need for a community-level decision, researchers often find themselves with no specific guidance on how that decision should be made, expressed and by whom. Target Malaria, the Kenya Medical Research Institute and the Pan African Mosquito Control Association co-organised a workshop with researchers and practitioners on this topic to question the model proposed by Target Malaria in its research so far that involved the release of genetically modified sterile male mosquitoes and how this could be adapted to future studies involving gene drive mosquito releases for them to offer reflections about potential best practices. This paper shares the outcomes of that workshop and highlights the remaining topics for discussion before a comprehensive model can be designed., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Delphine Thizy, Lea Pare Toe and Naima Sykes have interests that might be perceived as competing interests as they are working for Target Malaria, a not-for-profit project developing gene drive technologies to complement existing tools for malaria control. Similarly, Lydia Kapiriri, Abha Saxena and Paul Ndebele are currently serving as members of Target Malaria's independent ethics advisory committee. They have no other role in the Target Malaria project., (Copyright: © 2021 Thizy D et al.)

In the past decade, there has been an increase in genomic research and biobanking activities in Africa. Research initiatives such as the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) Consortium are contributing to the development of scientific capacity and infrastructure to support these studies on the continent. Despite this growth, genomic research and biobanking have raised important ethical challenges for key research stakeholders, including members of research ethics committees. One of these is the limited ethical and regulatory frameworks to guide the review and conduct of genomic studies, particularly in Africa. This paper is a reflection on a series of consultative activities with research ethics committees in Africa which informed the development of an ethics and governance framework for best practices in genomic research and biobanking in Africa. The paper highlights the engagement process and the lessoned learned.

Genomic research and biobanking are expanding globally, with a promise to fast-track the research needed to improve approaches to disease treatment and prevention through scientific collaborations such as the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) initiative. Integral to this type of research is the availability of samples and data for research. The need for broad access brings along a host of ethical concerns, including those related to privacy and confidentiality, as well as fairness and equity in access and capacity to utilise these samples between scientists from the high income and low income countries. Addressing these concerns while promoting genomic research, especially in Africa, requires the implementation of a sound governance framework. In this paper, we describe the contents of a Framework for Best Practice for Genomics Research and biobanking in Africa that was developed, under the auspices of the H3Africa initiative. This framework is broad enough to be used and adapted by African countries to facilitate the development of country-specific guidelines and to help improve the conduct and governance of genomics research., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2018 Yakubu A et al.)

Recent public health emergencies with outbreaks of influenza, Ebola and Zika revealed that the mechanisms for sharing research data are neither being used, or adequate for the purpose, particularly where data needs to be shared rapidly. A review of research papers, including completed clinical trials related to priority pathogens, found only 31% (98 out of 319 published papers, excluding case studies) provided access to all the data underlying the paper - 65% of these papers give no information on how to find or access the data. Only two clinical trials out of 58 on interventions for WHO priority pathogens provided any link in their registry entry to the background data. Interviews with researchers revealed a reluctance to share data included a lack of confidence in the utility of the data; an absence of academic-incentives for rapid dissemination that prevents subsequent publication and a disconnect between those who are collecting the data and those who wish to use it quickly.  The role of the funders of research needs to change to address this. Funders need to engage early with the researchers and related stakeholders to understand their concerns and work harder to define the more explicitly the benefits to all stakeholders.  Secondly, there needs to be a direct benefit to sharing data that is directly relevant to those people that collect and curate the data. Thirdly more work needs to be done to realise the intent of making data sharing resources more equitable, ethical and efficient.  Finally, a checklist of the issues that need to be addressed when designing new or revising existing data sharing resources should be created. This checklist would highlight the technical, cultural and ethical issues that need to be considered and point to examples of emerging good practice that can be used to address them., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Controlled human infection model (CHIM) studies have pivotal importance in vaccine development, being useful for proof of concept, pathogenesis, down-selection and immunogenicity studies.  To date, however, they have seldom been carried out in low and middle income countries (LMIC), which is where the greatest burden of vaccine preventable illness is found.  This workshop discussed the benefits and barriers to CHIM studies in Malawi.  Benefits include improved vaccine effectiveness and host country capacity development in clinical, laboratory and governance domains.  Barriers include acceptability, safety and regulatory issues. The report suggests a framework by which ethical, laboratory, scientific and governance issues may be addressed by investigators considering or planning CHIM in LMIC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: No competing interests are disclosed.

Background: Community engagement has been recognised as an important aspect of the ethical conduct of biomedical research, especially when research is focused on ethnically or culturally distinct populations. While this is a generally accepted tenet of biomedical research, it is unclear what components are necessary for effective community engagement, particularly in the context of genomic research in Africa., Methods: We conducted a review of the published literature to identify the community engagement strategies that can support the successful implementation of genomic studies in Africa. Our search strategy involved using online databases, Pubmed (National Library of Medicine), Medline and Google scholar. Search terms included a combination of the following: community engagement, community advisory boards, community consultation, community participation, effectiveness, genetic and genomic research, Africa, developing countries., Results: A total of 44 articles and 1 thesis were retrieved of which 38 met the selection criteria. Of these, 21 were primary studies on community engagement, while the rest were secondary reports on community engagement efforts in biomedical research studies. 34 related to biomedical research generally, while 4 were specific to genetic and genomic research in Africa., Conclusion: We concluded that there were several community engagement strategies that could support genomic studies in Africa. While many of the strategies could support the early stages of a research project such as the recruitment of research participants, further research is needed to identify effective strategies to engage research participants and their communities beyond the participant recruitment stage. Research is also needed to address how the views of local communities should be incorporated into future uses of human biological samples. Finally, studies evaluating the impact of CE on genetic research are lacking. Systematic evaluation of CE strategies is essential to determine the most effective models of CE for genetic and genomic research conducted in African settings.