Search

Background. Africa has seen an increase in the number of health research projects being conducted on the continent, particularly clinical trials. Ideally, this should be accompanied by a commensurate improvement in research ethics review capacity to competently provide the much-required research ethics oversight. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many African countries, which are still grappling with weak research ethics oversight capacity, not only at national level but also at institutional level. Objectives. To describe the proposal by Kenya’s national research ethics regulatory authority, the National Commission for Science Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI), to build the capacity of its National Scientific and Ethics Committee (NSEC), tasked with providing the required research ethics oversight in the country. Methods. This is the proposal submitted by NACOSTI to the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership for funding of a project entitled ‘Strengthening Research Ethics and Oversight in Kenya’ (STReK). It describes the activities involved to strengthen the NSEC to provide the required research ethics in the country, and to build the research ethics capacity of research ethics committees (RECs) it has accredited, through training and mentorship programmes, to enable them to efficiently review research proposals. Results. Proposed activities of the project are presented. Implementation of the activities described is ongoing. Conclusion. Lessons learnt in this regard may be of benefit to other research ethics regulatory authorities in resource-constrained countries aiming to strengthen their research ethics oversight capacity.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) have become beleaguered by a growth in responsibilities related to research oversight in the past several decades. A number of regulatory bodies have appeared in response to these novel and complex responsibilities, seeking to respond to among other issues, conflicts of interest, new technologies, and the potential misuse of research findings. Here, we examine several examples of these novel regulatory bodies as well as a number of concerns related to them that have been largely unacknowledged. Evidence suggests that there can be disharmony and conflicts between these regulatory bodies and IRBs, a lack of clarity with regard to their roles and responsibilities, as well as shortcomings within these entities that, at times, look a lot like the worries that have long been raised in relation to IRBs. We offer a brief discussion of how some of these concerns might be ameliorated, either through a significant restructuring of the system of research oversight, or perhaps through smaller changes to these regulatory bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonhuman animal research and phase I healthy-volunteer clinical trials are both critical components of testing the safety of investigational drugs as part of the development of new pharmaceuticals. In addition, these types of research share important structural features, as both take place in confinement and both use subjects that are dissimilar to the target population. By mobilizing a model-organism framework for phase I trials, we employ concepts and mechanisms typical to animal research to query gaps in the human subjects ethics and policy framework. By bringing these two research worlds together, we aim to illustrate how the model-organism framework can enhance healthy volunteers' welfare during trials, improve research oversight, and more critically assess the science value of current phase I trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trials on healthy volunteers generate unique ethical challenges both because participants accept potential physical risks without the possibility of direct medical benefit and because participants' financial motivations to enroll in trials could lead to their exploitation. Despite the large volume of published empirical studies and ethical analyses of healthy volunteer research, there has been little concerted effort to change how healthy‐volunteer research is overseen or regulated. A new collaborative effort to do so is the VolREthics (Volunteers in Research and Ethics) Initiative. Launched in 2022, this initiative brings together an international community to engage questions about how healthy volunteers could best be protected from the risks of harm and exploitation while the validity of clinical trials is optimized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The concept of vulnerability has held a central place in research ethics guidance since its introduction in the United States Belmont Report in 1979. It signals mindfulness for researchers and research ethics boards to the possibility that some participants may be at higher risk of harm or wrong. Despite its important intended purpose and widespread use, there is considerable disagreement in the scholarly literature about the meaning and delineation of vulnerability, stemming from a perceived lack of guidance within research ethics standards. The aim of this study was to assess the concept of vulnerability as it is employed in major national and international research ethics policies and guidelines.Methods: We conducted an in-depth analysis of 11 (five national and six international) research ethics policies and guidelines, exploring their discussions of the definition, application, normative justification and implications of vulnerability.Results: Few policies and guidelines explicitly defined vulnerability, instead relying on implicit assumptions and the delineation of vulnerable groups and sources of vulnerability. On the whole, we found considerable richness in the content on vulnerability across policies, but note that this relies heavily on the structure imposed on the data through our analysis.Conclusions: Our results underscore a need for policymakers to revisit the guidance on vulnerability in research ethics, and we propose that a process of stakeholder engagement would well-support this effort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The oversight of research involving human participants is a complex process that requires institutional review board review as well as multiple non-institutional review board institutional reviews. This multifaceted process is particularly challenging for multisite research when each site independently completes all required local reviews. The lack of inter-institutional standardization can result in different review outcomes for the same protocol, which can delay study operations from start-up to study completion. Hence, there have been strong calls to harmonize and thus streamline the research oversight process. Although the institutional review board is only one of the required reviews, it is often identified as the target for harmonization and streamlining. Data regarding variability in decision-making and interpretation of the regulations across institutional review boards have led to a perception that variability among institutional review boards is a primary contributor to the problems with review of multisite research. In response, many researchers and policymakers have proposed the use of a single institutional review board of record, also called a central institutional review board, as an important remedy. While this proposal has merit, the use of a central institutional review board for multisite research does not address the larger problem of completing non-institutional review board institutional review in addition to institutional review board review—and coordinating the interdependence of these reviews. In this article, we describe the overall research oversight process, distinguish between institutional review board and institutional responsibilities, and identify challenges and opportunities for harmonization and streamlining. We focus on procedural and organizational issues and presume that the protection of human subjects remains the paramount concern. Suggested modifications of institutional review board processes that focus on time, efficiency, and consistency of review must also address what effect such changes have on the quality of review. We acknowledge that assessment of quality is difficult in that quality metrics for institutional review board review remain elusive. At best, we may be able to assess the time it takes to review protocols and the consistency across institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The basic procedures and rules for oversight of U.S. human subjects research have been in place since 1981. Certain types of human subjects research, however, have provoked creation of additional mechanisms and rules beyond the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) Common Rule and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) equivalent. Now another emerging domain of human subjects research-nanomedicine-is prompting calls for extra oversight. However, in 30 years of overseeing research on human beings, we have yet to specify what makes a domain of scientific research warrant extra oversight. This failure to systematically evaluate the need for extra measures, the type of extra measures appropriate for different challenges, and the usefulness of those measures hampers efforts to respond appropriately to emerging science such as nanomedicine. This article evaluates the history of extra oversight, extracting lessons for oversight of nanomedicine research in human beings. We argue that a confluence of factors supports the need for extra oversight, including heightened uncertainty regarding risks, fast-evolving science yielding complex and increasingly active materials, likelihood of research on vulnerable participants including cancer patients, and potential risks to others beyond the research participant. We suggest the essential elements of the extra oversight needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

hieving a good clinical trial design increases the likelihood that a trial will take place as planned, including that data will be obtained from a sufficient number of participants, and the total number of participants will be the minimal required to gain the knowledge sought. A good trial design also increases the likelihood that the knowledge sought by the experiment will be forthcoming. Achieving such a design is more than good sense-it is ethically required in experiments when participants are at risk of harm. This paper argues that doing a power analysis effectively contributes to ensuring that a trial design is good. The ethical importance of good trial design has long been recognized for trials in which there is risk of serious harm to participants. However, whether the quality of a trial design, when the risk to participants is only minimal, is an ethical issue is rarely discussed. This paper argues that even in cases when the risk is minimal, the quality of the trial design is an ethical issue, and that this is reflected in the emphasis the Belmont Report places on the importance of the benefit of knowledge gained by society. The paper also argues that good trial design is required for true informed consent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]