ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesBiomedical

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

The Next Phase of Human Gene-Therapy Oversight – The New England Journal of Medicine (Francis S. Collins and Scott Gottlieb | August 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on October 18, 2018
 

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have played key roles in the emergence of safe and effective human gene therapies. Now, we are proposing new efforts to encourage further advances in this rapidly evolving field.

The potential to alter human genes directly was first recognized nearly 50 years ago, around the same time as initial groundbreaking advances were being made in recombinant DNA technology. After intense discussions regarding the ethical, legal, and social implications of this technology, conversations were initiated at the NIH that led to the establishment of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) in 1974. The RAC’s mission was to advise the NIH director on research that used emerging technologies involving manipulation of nucleic acids — a mission that was eventually expanded to encompass the review and discussion of protocols for gene therapy in humans. In 1990, the FDA oversaw the first U.S. human gene-therapy trial, which involved pediatric patients with adenosine deaminase deficiency and was conducted at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

Although no major safety concerns were initially reported, over the course of the 1990s it became evident that many questions regarding the safety and efficacy of gene therapy remained unanswered. These unknowns were brought into sharp focus in 1999 when Jesse Gelsinger died of a massive immune response during a safety trial of gene therapy for ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency.1 This tragic death led to closer scrutiny of the field, including a greater focus on open dialogue and increased regulatory oversight.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

What information and the extent of information research participants need in informed consent forms: a multi-country survey (Juntra Karbwang, et al | 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on October 7, 2018
 

Abstract

Background
The use of lengthy, detailed, and complex informed consent forms (ICFs) is of paramount concern in biomedical research as it may not truly promote the rights and interests of research participants. The extent of information in ICFs has been the subject of debates for decades; however, no clear guidance is given. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the perspectives of research participants about the type and extent of information they need when they are invited to participate in biomedical research.

Methods
This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).

Results
Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be ‘moderately important’ to ‘very important’ for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively).

Conclusions
Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.

Keywords
Consent forms, Informed consent, Disclosure, Information, Ethics, Research subjects

Karbwang, J., et al. (2018). “What information and the extent of information research participants need in informed consent forms: a multi-country survey.” BMC Medical Ethics 19(1): 79.
Publisher (Open Access): https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-018-0318-x#Decs

Financial Ties That Bind: Studies Often Fall Short On Conflict-Of-Interest Disclosures – KHN (Rachel Bluth | August 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on September 4, 2018
 

Papers in medical journals go through rigorous peer review and meticulous data analysis.

Yet many of these articles are missing a key piece of information: the financial ties of the authors.

Nearly two-thirds of the 100 physicians who rake in the most money from 10 device manufacturers failed to disclose a conflict of interest in their academic writing in 2016, according to a study published Wednesday in JAMA Surgery.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Research with, not about, communities – Ethical guidance towards empowerment in collaborative research, a report for the TRUST project – TRUST (Kate Chatfield, et al | July 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on August 28, 2018
 

Executive Summary and Introduction
Community engagement is an ethical imperative (a ‘must’) for researchers operating globally. Research participants, their local communities and research partners in international locations should be equal stakeholders1 in the pursuit of research-related gains.2,3

Great TRUST paper about a more respectful approach to research with communities. We have included links to a treasure trove of papers, reports, blog posts and news items on matters around the topics discussed in this paper.

In the 1990s, community engagement became prominent as the new guiding light of public health efforts. Involving communities in research and health-improvement programs led to better results than government-led programs alone.4 At the same time, the emerging need to protect indigenous communities in genetic research led Canadian Charles Weijer to demand a fifth principle in bioethics5,6: protection for communities.7 The individualistic nature of existing research ethics principles, stemming from US origins with its traditional emphasis upon individual autonomy was thus questioned. Asian and African ethicists added their voices to highlight the importance of respect for communities, as well as individuals.8,9
.
This report provides guidance on community engagement in research from the perspective of the four TRUST values: fairness, respect, care and honesty.
.
These values were identified by a global group of experts as the cornerstones of equitable research partnerships between high-income country (HIC) and low- and middle-income country (LMIC) research partners in any discipline10. The group included representatives from two vulnerable populations that carry a high burden of research: Kenyan sex workers and San indigenous peoples of Southern Africa. The guidance is suitable for all who support vulnerable populations involved in research projects, including civil society organisations, whether or not they are carrying out the research projects themselves.
.

Chatfield, K. et al. (2018) Research with, not about, communities – Ethical guidance towards empowerment in collaborative research, a report for the TRUST project.  http://trust-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TRUST-Community-Participation-in-Research-Final.pdf

Page 1 of 5412345...102030...Last »