Search

Background: Ethics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context remains a debated issue among research ethics experts., Main Text: In this article, we seek to address this issue in a twofold manner. First, we review the strengths and weaknesses of ERCs in ensuring ethical oversight. Second, we map these strengths and weaknesses onto specific challenges raised by big data research. We distinguish two categories of potential weakness. The first category concerns persistent weaknesses, i.e., those which are not specific to big data research, but may be exacerbated by it. The second category concerns novel weaknesses, i.e., those which are created by and inherent to big data projects. Within this second category, we further distinguish between purview weaknesses related to the ERC's scope (e.g., how big data projects may evade ERC review) and functional weaknesses, related to the ERC's way of operating. Based on this analysis, we propose reforms aimed at improving the oversight capacity of ERCs in the era of big data science., Conclusions: We believe the oversight mechanism could benefit from these reforms because they will help to overcome data-intensive research challenges and consequently benefit research at large.

Good biobank governance implies-at a minimum-transparency and accountability and the implementation of oversight mechanisms. While the biobanking community is in general committed to such principles, little is known about precisely which governance strategies biobanks adopt to meet those objectives. We conducted an exploratory analysis of governance mechanisms adopted by research biobanks, including genetic biobanks, located in Europe and Canada. We reviewed information available on the websites of 69 biobanks, and directly contacted them for additional information. Our study identified six types of commonly adopted governance strategies: communication, compliance, expert advice, external review, internal procedures, and partnerships. Each strategy is implemented through different mechanisms including, independent ethics assessment, informed consent processes, quality management, data access control, legal compliance, standard operating procedures and external certification. Such mechanisms rely on a wide range of bodies, committees and actors from both within and outside the biobanks themselves. We found that most biobanks aim to be transparent about their governance mechanisms, but could do more to provide more complete and detailed information about them. In particular, the retrievable information, while showing efforts to ensure biobanks operate in a legitimate way, does not specify in sufficient detail how governance mechanisms support accountability, nor how they ensure oversight of research operations. This state of affairs can potentially undermine biobanks' trustworthiness to stakeholders and the public in a long-term perspective. Given the ever-increasing reliance of biomedical research on large biological repositories and their associated databases, we recommend that biobanks increase their efforts to future-proof their governance.

Data collection and processing via digital public health technologies are being promoted worldwide by governments and private companies as strategic remedies for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic and loosening lockdown measures. However, the ethical and legal boundaries of deploying digital tools for disease surveillance and control purposes are unclear, and a rapidly evolving debate has emerged globally around the promises and risks of mobilising digital tools for public health. To help scientists and policy makers to navigate technological and ethical uncertainty, we present a typology of the primary digital public health applications that are in use. These include proximity and contact tracing, symptom monitoring, quarantine control, and flow modelling. For each, we discuss context-specific risks, cross-sectional issues, and ethical concerns. Finally, recognising the need for practical guidance, we propose a navigation aid for policy makers and other decision makers for the ethical development and use of digital public health tools., (© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.)

Background: The mobile health (mHealth) app trustworthiness (mHAT) checklist was created to identify end users' opinions on the characteristics of trustworthy mHealth apps and to communicate this information to app developers. To ensure that the checklist is suited for all relevant stakeholders, it is necessary to validate its contents., Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of the mHAT checklist by modifying its contents according to ratings and suggestions from stakeholders familiar with the process of developing, managing, or curating mHealth apps., Methods: A 44-item online survey was administered to relevant stakeholders. The survey was largely comprised of the mHAT checklist items, which respondents rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5)., Results: In total, seven professional backgrounds were represented in the survey: administrators (n=6), health professionals (n=7), information technology personnel (n=6), managers (n=2), marketing personnel (n=3), researchers (n=5), and user experience researchers (n=8). Aside from one checklist item-"the app can inform end users about errors in measurements"-the combined positive ratings (ie, completely agree and agree) of the checklist items overwhelmingly exceeded the combined negative ratings (ie, completely disagree and disagree). Meanwhile, two additional items were included in the checklist: (1) business or funding model of the app and (2) details on app uninstallation statistics., Conclusions: Our results indicate that the mHAT checklist is a valuable resource for a broad range of stakeholders to develop trustworthy mHealth apps. Future studies should examine if the checklist works best for certain mHealth apps or in specific settings., (©Afua van Haasteren, Effy Vayena, John Powell. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 21.07.2020.)

The past few years have witnessed several media-covered cases involving citizens actively engaging in the pursuit of experimental treatments for their medical conditions-or those of their loved ones-in the absence of established standards of therapy. This phenomenon is particularly observable in patients with rare genetic diseases, as the development of effective therapies for these disorders is hindered by the limited profitability and market value of pharmaceutical research. Sociotechnical trends at the cross-section of medicine and society are facilitating the involvement of patients and creating the digital infrastructure necessary to its sustainment. Such participant-led research (PLR) has the potential to promote the autonomy of research participants as drivers of discovery and to open novel non-canonical avenues of scientific research. At the same time, however, the extra-institutional, self-appointed, and, often, oversight-free nature of PLR raises ethical concern. This paper explores the complex ethical entanglement of PLR by critically appraising case studies and discussing the conditions for its moral justification. Furthermore, we propose a path forward to ensure the safe and effective implementation of PLR within the current research ecosystem in a manner that maximizes the benefits for both individual participants and society at large, while minimizing the risks.

Digital health encompasses a wide range of novel digital technologies related to health and medicine. Such technologies rely on recent advances in the collection and analysis of ever increasing amounts of data from both patients and healthy citizens. Along with new opportunities, however, come new ethical and policy challenges. These range from the need to adapt current evidence-based standards, to issues of privacy, oversight, accountability and public trust as well as national and international data governance and management. This review illustrates key issues and challenges facing the rapidly unfolding digital health paradigm and reflects on the impact of big data in medical research and clinical practice both internationally and in Switzerland. It concludes by emphasising five conditions that will be crucial to fulfil in order to foster innovation and fair benefit sharing in digital health.

Trust is a ubiquitous term used in emerging technology (e.g., Big Data, precision medicine), innovation policy, and governance literatures in particular. But what exactly is trust? Even though trust is considered a critical requirement for the successful deployment of precision medicine initiatives, nonetheless, there is a need for further conceptualization with regard to what qualifies as trust, and what factors might establish and sustain trust in precision medicine, predictive analytics, and large-scale biology. These new fields of 21st century medicine and health often deal with the "futures" and hence, trust gains a temporal and ever-present quality for both the present and the futures anticipated by new technologies and predictive analytics. We address these conceptual gaps that have important practical implications in the way we govern risk and unknowns associated with emerging technologies in biology, medicine, and health broadly. We provide an in-depth conceptual analysis and an operative definition of trust dynamics in precision medicine. In addition, we identify three main types of "trust facilitators": (1) technical, (2) ethical, and (3) institutional. This three-dimensional framework on trust is necessary to building and maintaining trust in 21st century knowledge-based innovations that governments and publics invest for progressive societal change, development, and sustainable prosperity. Importantly, we analyze, identify, and deliberate on the dimensions of precision medicine and large-scale biology that have carved out trust as a pertinent tool to its success. Moving forward, we propose a "points to consider" on how best to enhance trust in precision medicine and predictive analytics.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the rationale and basic principles guiding the governance of genomic testing services, to clarify their objectives, and allocate and define responsibilities among stakeholders in a health-care system, with a special focus on the EU countries. Particular attention is paid to issues pertaining to pricing and reimbursement policies, the availability of essential genomic tests which differs between various countries owing to differences in disease prevalence and public health relevance, the prescribing and use of genomic testing services according to existing or new guidelines, budgetary and fiscal control, the balance between price and access to innovative testing, monitoring and evaluation for cost-effectiveness and safety, and the development of research capacity. We conclude that addressing the specific items put forward in this article will help to create a robust policy in relation to pricing and reimbursement in genomic medicine. This will contribute to an effective and sustainable health-care system and will prove beneficial to the economy at large., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Diagnostics spanning a wide range of new biotechnologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and nanotechnology, are emerging as companion tests to innovative medicines. In this Opinion, we present the rationale for promulgating an "Essential Diagnostics List." Additionally, we explain the ways in which adopting a vision for "Health in All Policies" could link essential diagnostics with robust and timely societal outcomes such as sustainable development, human rights, gender parity, and alleviation of poverty. We do so in three ways. First, we propose the need for a new, "see through" taxonomy for knowledge-based innovation as we transition from the material industries (e.g., textiles, plastic, cement, glass) dominant in the 20(th) century to the anticipated knowledge industry of the 21st century. If knowledge is the currency of the present century, then it is sensible to adopt an approach that thoroughly examines scientific knowledge, starting with the production aims, methods, quality, distribution, access, and the ends it purports to serve. Second, we explain that this knowledge trajectory focus on innovation is crucial and applicable across all sectors, including public, private, or public-private partnerships, as it underscores the fact that scientific knowledge is a co-product of technology, human values, and social systems. By making the value systems embedded in scientific design and knowledge co-production transparent, we all stand to benefit from sustainable and transparent science. Third, we appeal to the global health community to consider the necessary qualities of good governance for 21st century organizations that will embark on developing essential diagnostics. These have importance not only for science and knowledge-based innovation, but also for the ways in which we can build open, healthy, and peaceful civil societies today and for future generations.

This article announces the recipient of the 2014 inaugural Werner Kalow Responsible Innovation Prize in Global Omics and Personalized Medicine by the Pacific Rim Association for Clinical Pharmacogenetics (PRACP): Bernard Lerer, professor of psychiatry and director of the Biological Psychiatry Laboratory, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. The Werner Kalow Responsible Innovation Prize is given to an exceptional interdisciplinary scholar who has made highly innovative and enduring contributions to global omics science and personalized medicine, with both vertical and horizontal (transdisciplinary) impacts. The prize is established in memory of a beloved colleague, mentor, and friend, the late Professor Werner Kalow, who cultivated the idea and practice of pharmacogenetics in modern therapeutics commencing in the 1950s. PRACP, the prize's sponsor, is one of the longest standing learned societies in the Asia-Pacific region, and was founded by Kalow and colleagues more than two decades ago in the then-emerging field of pharmacogenetics. In announcing this inaugural prize and its winner, we seek to highlight the works of prize winner, Professor Lerer. Additionally, we contextualize the significance of the prize by recalling the life and works of Professor Kalow and providing a brief socio-technical history of the rise of pharmacogenetics and personalized medicine as a veritable form of 21(st) century scientific practice. The article also fills a void in previous social science analyses of pharmacogenetics, by bringing to the fore the works of Kalow from 1995 to 2008, when he presciently noted the rise of yet another field of postgenomics inquiry--pharmacoepigenetics--that railed against genetic determinism and underscored the temporal and spatial plasticity of genetic components of drug response, with invention of the repeated drug administration (RDA) method that estimates the dynamic heritabilities of drug response. The prize goes a long way to cultivate transgenerational capacity and broader cognizance of the concept and practice of responsible innovation as an important criterion of 21(st) century omics science and personalized medicine. A new call is presently in place for the 2016 PRACP Werner Kalow prize. Nominations can be made in support of an exceptional individual interdisciplinary scholar, or alternatively, an entire research team, from any region in the world with a record of highly innovative contributions to global omics science and/or personalized medicine, in the spirit of responsible innovation. The application process is straightforward, requiring a signed, 1500-word nomination letter (by the applicant or sponsor) submitted not later than May 31, 2015.

Metadata refer to descriptions about data or as some put it, "data about data." Metadata capture what happens on the backstage of science, on the trajectory from study conception, design, funding, implementation, and analysis to reporting. Definitions of metadata vary, but they can include the context information surrounding the practice of science, or data generated as one uses a technology, including transactional information about the user. As the pursuit of knowledge broadens in the 21(st) century from traditional "science of whats" (data) to include "science of hows" (metadata), we analyze the ways in which metadata serve as a catalyst for responsible and open innovation, and by extension, science diplomacy. In 2015, the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) will formally come to an end. Therefore, we propose that metadata, as an ingredient of responsible innovation, can help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on the post-2015 agenda. Such responsible innovation, as a collective learning process, has become a key component, for example, of the European Union's 80 billion Euro Horizon 2020 R&D Program from 2014-2020. Looking ahead, OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, is launching an initiative for a multi-omics metadata checklist that is flexible yet comprehensive, and will enable more complete utilization of single and multi-omics data sets through data harmonization and greater visibility and accessibility. The generation of metadata that shed light on how omics research is carried out, by whom and under what circumstances, will create an "intervention space" for integration of science with its socio-technical context. This will go a long way to addressing responsible innovation for a fairer and more transparent society. If we believe in science, then such reflexive qualities and commitments attained by availability of omics metadata are preconditions for a robust and socially attuned science, which can then remain broadly respected, independent, and responsibly innovative. "In Sierra Leone, we have not too much electricity. The lights will come on once in a week, and the rest of the month, dark[ness]. So I made my own battery to power light in people's houses." Kelvin Doe (Global Minimum, 2012) MIT Visiting Young Innovator Cambridge, USA, and Sierra Leone "An important function of the (Global) R&D Observatory will be to provide support and training to build capacity in the collection and analysis of R&D flows, and how to link them to the product pipeline." World Health Organization (2013) Draft Working Paper on a Global Health R&D Observatory.

Background: Intrapartum complications are responsible for approximately half of all maternal deaths, and two million stillbirth and neonatal deaths per year. Prolonged second stage of labour is associated with potentially fatal maternal complications such as haemorrhage and infection and it is a major cause of stillbirth and newborn morbidity and mortality. Currently, the three main options for managing prolonged second stage of labour are forceps, vacuum extractor and caesarean section. All three clinical practices require relatively expensive equipment (e.g., a surgical theatre for caesarean section) and/or highly trained staff which are often not available in low resource settings. The specific aim of the proposed study is to test the safety and feasibility of a new device (Odón device) to effectively deliver the fetus during prolonged second stage of labour. The Odón device is a low-cost technological innovation to facilitate operative vaginal delivery and designed to minimize trauma to the mother and baby. These features combined make it a potentially revolutionary development in obstetrics, particularly for improving intrapartum care and reducing maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in low resource settings., Methods/design: This will be a hospital-based, multicenter prospective phase 1 cohort study with no control group. Delivery with the Odón device will be attempted under normal labour and non-emergency conditions on all the women enrolled in the study. One-hundred and thirty pregnant women will be recruited in tertiary care facilities in Argentina. Safety will be assessed by examining maternal and infant outcomes until discharge. Feasibility will be evaluated by observing successful expulsion of the fetal head after one-time application of the device under standardized conditions (full cervical dilation, anterior presentation, +2 station, normal fetal heart rate)., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). Identifier: ACTRN12613000141741.