What are local issues? The problem of the local review of research

Local review of research by ethics committees in the UK has long been held to be an important right of the local research ethics committee and, even with the introduction of the European Clinical Trials Directive, the governance arrangements for research ethics committees continue to allow for local review of multicentre studies. There is no requirement for local review in either the European Union directive or in the guidelines on good clinical practice, and there is little evidence of it anywhere else in Europe. The idea that there can be "local", as opposed to "central" ethical issues in research is an interesting one, which raises important issues about the nature of research ethics and ethical review. The aim of this paper is to argue that there are no such things as local issues in research ethics, and suggest that those questions currently addressed as local issues properly belong within the research governance framework.     

Delays and diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the practices of local research ethics committees and the time they take to obtain ethical approval for a multi-centre study. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of outcome of applications for a multi-centre study to local research ethics committees. SETTING: Thirty-six local research ethics committees covering 38 district health authorities in England. MAIN MEASURES: Response of chairmen and women, the time required to obtain approval, and questions asked in application forms. RESULTS: We received replies from all 36 chairmen contacted: four (11%) granted their approval, and 32 (89%) required our proposal to be considered by their local research ethics committee. Three committees asked us to attend their meetings. The application was approved by all 36 local research ethics committees but the time to obtain ethical approval varied between six to 208 days. One third of the committees did not approve the project within three months, and three took longer than six months. There was considerable variation in the issues raised by local research ethics committees and none conformed exactly to the Royal College of Physicians' guidelines. CONCLUSION: Obtaining ethical approval for a multi-centre study is time-consuming. There is much diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees. Our data support the recommendation for a central or regional review body of multi-centre studies which will be acceptable to all local research ethics committees.     

In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees

Research ethics review is an important process, designed to protect participants in medical research. However, it is increasingly criticised for failing to meet its aims. Here, two researchers reflect on their experiences of applying for ethical approval of observational research in clinical settings. They highlight some problems faced by reviewers and researchers and propose a two-stage ethical review process that would alert researchers to the committee's concerns and allow them to give a more considered response.     

Protecting the privacy of family members in survey and pedigree research

The recent controversy at Virginia Commonwealth University involving research ethics raises important and complex issues in survey and pedigree research. The primary questions are whether family members of survey respondents themselves become subjects of the project and if they are subjects whether informed consent must be obtained for investigators to retain private information on these individuals. This article provides an analysis of the ethical issues and regulatory standards involved in this debate for consideration by investigators and institutional review boards. The analysis suggests that strong protections for the rights and welfare of subjects and their family members can be incorporated into survey and pedigree research protocols without hindering projects with extensive consent requirements.     

Ethical approval in developing countries is not optional

When conducting health and medical research it is important to do the research ethically and to apply for prior ethical approval from the relevant authorities. The latter requirement is true for developed countries as well as developing countries. The authors argue that simply applying for research ethics approval from an institutional review board at a university based in a developed country is not enough to start a health research project in a developing country. The paper also suggests a number of reasons why researchers may fail to seek local research ethics permission in developing countries. The authors use a recent paper reporting research conducted in Nepal and published in an international journal as a case study to highlight the importance of being sensitive to local requirements regarding applying for and registering health and medical research.     

Biobanks for non-clinical purposes and the new law on forensic biobanks: does the Italian context protect the rights of minors?

Biobanks are an important resource for medical research. Genetic research on biological material from minors can yield valuable information that can improve our understanding of genetic-environmental interactions and the genesis and development of early onset genetic disorders. The major ethical concerns relating to biobanks concern consent, privacy, confidentiality, commercialisation, and the right to know or not to know. However, research on paediatric data raises specific governance and ethical questions with regard to consent and privacy. We have considered the Italian normative context focusing on what is mentioned in each document on the ethical and legal requirements that guarantee the rights of minors. We found out that there is no systematic reflection on the ethical and policy issues arising from the participation of minors in biobank research. Moreover, we have focused on the same aspects for the new Italian Law on the National Forensic Biobank.     

The views of members of Local Research Ethics Committees, researchers and members of the public towards the roles and functions of LRECs.

BACKGROUND: It can be argued that the ethical conduct of research involves achieving a balance between the rights and needs of three parties-potential research participants, society, and researchers. Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs) have a number of roles and functions in the research enterprise, but there have been some indications that LREC members, researchers and the public can have different views about these responsibilities. Any such differences are potential sources of disagreement and misunderstanding. OBJECTIVES: To compare the views of LREC members, researchers and the public towards the roles and functions of LRECs. DESIGN: A questionnaire that contained items concerned with a variety of such roles was distributed to general practice patients (as proxies for potential research participants), researchers and LREC members. FINDINGS: While general practice patients believed that the main function of LRECs is to ensure that research participants come to no harm, LREC members were more concerned with the protection of participants' rights. There was also some disagreement between members and researchers with regard to the consideration of proposals on the grounds of scientific merit. CONCLUSIONS: Local Research Ethics Committee members need to be aware of potential differences in views, that they ought to make their priorities clear, and that membership of LRECs ought to reflect the views of both researchers and potential research participants.     

Ethical practice in internet research involving vulnerable people: lessons from a self-harm discussion forum study (SharpTalk)

The internet is widely used for health information and support, often by vulnerable people. Internet-based research raises both familiar and new ethical problems for researchers and ethics committees. While guidelines for internet-based research are available, it is unclear to what extent ethics committees use these. Experience of gaining research ethics approval for a UK study (SharpTalk), involving internet-based discussion groups with young people who self-harm and health professionals is described. During ethical review, unsurprisingly, concerns were raised about the vulnerability of potential participants. These were dominated by the issue of anonymity, which also affected participant safety and consent. These ethical problems are discussed, and our solutions, which included: participant usernames specific to the study, a closed website, private messaging facilities, a direct contact email to researchers, information about forum rules displayed on the website, a 'report' button for participants, links to online support, and a discussion room for forum moderators. This experience with SharpTalk suggests that an approach to ethics, which recognises the relational aspects of research with vulnerable people, is particularly useful for internet-based health research. The solutions presented here can act as guidance for researchers developing proposals and for ethics committees reviewing them.     

Ethical review of health research: a perspective from developing country researchers

BACKGROUND: Increasing collaboration between industrialised and developing countries in human research studies has led to concerns regarding the potential exploitation of resource deprived countries. This study, commissioned by the former National Bioethics Advisory Commission of the United States, surveyed developing country researchers about their concerns and opinions regarding ethical review processes and the performance of developing country and US international review boards (IRBs). METHODS: Contact lists from four international organisations were used to identify and survey 670 health researchers in developing countries. A questionnaire with 169 questions explored issues of IRB review, informed consent, and recommendations. RESULTS: The majority of the developing country researchers were middle aged males who were physicians and were employed by educational institutions, carrying out research on part time basis. Forty four percent of the respondents reported that their studies were not reviewed by a developing country IRB or Ministry of Health and one third of these studies were funded by the US. During the review process issues such as the need for local language consent forms and letters for approval, and confidentiality protection of participants were raised by US IRBs in significantly higher proportions than by host country IRBs. CONCLUSION: This survey indicates the need for the ethical review of collaborative research in both US and host countries. It also reflects a desire for focused capacity development in supporting ethical review of research.     

Local Research Ethics Committees can audit ethical standards in research.

OBJECTIVES: To show that a Local Research Ethics Committee (LREC) can carry out an audit of ethical standards in research. To find out if a researcher met certain ethical standards in recruiting subjects for clinical trials and in obtaining their consent. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire. SETTING: Clinical research by one doctor during one year. SUBJECTS: Eleven patients entered in clinical trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success in ethics committee obtaining data. Achievement of ethical standards in recruitment of subjects and in obtaining consent. RESULTS: The audit was successfully carried out and standards were partly met. CONCLUSIONS: Local Research Ethics Committees can carry out audits of the conduct of research projects which they have approved. Provision for possible audits can be made at the time of application to the committee. Our committee thought the ethical standards in the research which we audited were acceptable.     

Public deliberation and private choice in genetics and reproduction

The development of human genetics raises a wide range of important ethical questions for us all. The interpersonal dimension of genetic information in particular means that genetics also poses important challenges to the idea of patient-centredness and autonomy in medicine. How ought practical ethical decisions about the new genetics be made given that we appear, moreover, no longer to be able to appeal to unquestioned traditions and widely shared communitarian values? This paper argues that any coherent ethical approach to these questions must be able both to uphold the moral status of the individual and at the same time recognise the communitarian, interpersonal dimensions both of the world in which we live and of personal autonomy itself. The paper then goes on to propose an approach to the resolution of the ethical questions raised by the use of the new genetics in reproductive choice through the development of a coherent and principled process of public reason and justification oriented towards the support and development of personal autonomy.     

New European guidelines for the use of stored human biological materials in biomedical research

The increasing possibilities for using tissue for research and development in genetics and biotechnology have made stored human biological materials more important than ever. Using stored human biological materials raises many legal and ethical questions. On an international level however, the use of these materials has not been regulated in a detailed manner so far. The Council of Europe recently declassified the text of the proposal for an instrument on the use of archived human biological materials in biomedical research for public consultation. The purpose of this paper is to comment on this document regarding its primary goal, which is to protect the rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual whose biological materials could be included in a research project. The guidelines offer good basic protection for sources of identifiable human biological materials but, surprisingly, offer no protection to sources of anonymous or anonymised materials.     

Ethics review of research: in pursuit of proportionality

The ethics review system of research is now well-established, at least in the developed world, although there are many differences in how countries view it and go about managing it. The UK specifically is now seeking to revise its system by speeding up the process of ethics approval but only for some studies. It is proposed that only those studies which pose "no material ethical issues" should be "fast-tracked". However, it is unclear what this means, who should decide and what should be included in this category. In this paper, we go some way towards answering these questions. While we are certain that the debate is only just beginning, we are equally certain that it will continue to run long after the system has been reformed. To stimulate this conversation and to inform a pilot project of the new system directly, we review two candidates to help give some substance to the notion of "material" ethical issues. Firstly, material could mean a certain type or degree of risk. Second, material could mean how physically invasive the research is. We conclude that there is still much work to be done on making the system of governing health and social care consistent and practicable.     

Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a historical evaluation and future prognosis of therapeutically relevant ethical concerns

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive neurostimulatory and neuromodulatory technique increasingly used in clinical and research practices around the world. Historically, the ethical considerations guiding the therapeutic practice of TMS were largely concerned with aspects of subject safety in clinical trials. While safety remains of paramount importance, the recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of the Neuronetics NeuroStar TMS device for the treatment of specific medication-resistant depression has raised a number of additional ethical concerns, including marketing, off-label use and technician certification. This article provides an overview of the history of TMS and highlights the ethical questions that are likely arise as the therapeutic use of TMS continues to expand.     

Ethical approval for research involving geographically dispersed subjects: unsuitability of the UK MREC/LREC system and relevance to uncommon genetic disorders

OBJECTIVES: To assess the process involved in obtaining ethical approval for a single-centre study involving geographically dispersed subjects with an uncommon genetic disorder. DESIGN: Observational data of the application process to 53 local research ethics committees (LRECs) throughout Wales, England and Scotland. The Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (MREC) for Wales had already granted approval. RESULTS: Application to the 53 LRECs required 24,552 sheets of paper and took two months of the researcher's time. The median time taken for approval was 39 days with only seven (13%) of committees responding within the recommended 21 days. In at least nineteen cases (36%) a subcommittee considered the application. Thirty-three committees (62%) accepted the proposal without amendments but, of the remainder, four (8%) requested changes outside of the remit of LRECs. DISCUSSION: Difficulties still exist with the system for obtaining ethical approval for studies involving a single centre but with patients at multiple sites, as is often required for genetic observational research. As such studies differ from true multicentre studies, it may be advantageous to develop a separate and specific process of application to ensure that resources are not unnecessarily expended in the quest for ethical approval.     

人类基因编辑研究伦理审查工作对策探讨——基因编辑婴儿诞生在中国后的思考

剖析基因编辑婴儿事件中的法律与伦理问题,从刚性规制、伦理规范滞后、独立性、监管四方面反思基因编辑婴儿事件,并就完善人类基因编辑研究伦理审查工作的主题,从加强基因编辑研究伦理立法、基因编辑技术伦理规范建设、独立的伦理审查机制、全球监管等四个视角进行对策探讨。     

SEARCH's HBNC trial: towards a broader debate on the ethics of social intervention research

The SEARCH home-based neonatal care (HBNC) trial generated a heated debate amongst health activists, researchers and demographers in India upon its publication in the Lancet in 1999. More than a decade after the Lancet article, a new debate has been sparked, this time on the ethics of the study. Against this backdrop, we identify three key questions which require in-depth discussion. First, was the choice of the study design (cluster nonrandomised control trial), appropriate given the circumstances relating both to the study site and the locale? Second, was it ethical not to offer any intervention to the control units given that a known treatment existed? Third, do contemporary research ethics guidelines satisfactorily address all the ethical issues related to the study design? This paper examines the first question. We draw three main conclusions from this critical appraisal of the HBNC trial. First, the study design of the trial is motivated by the paradigm of evidence-based programmes and policy formulation. Second, generally speaking, the HBNC study design passes the internal and external validity tests but raises important ethical questions. Third, these questions transcend the HBNC trial to apply to many other social and health interventions studies; as such, the HBNC trial should be studied as a paradigmatic case.     

Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: what can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud?

In this review of the Korean cloning scandal involving Woo-Suk Hwang, the nature of the disaster is documented and reasons why it occurred are suggested. The general problems it raises for scientific research are highlighted and six possible ways of improving practice are offered in the light of this case: (1) better education of science students; (2) independent monitoring and validation; (3) guidelines for tissue donation for research; (4) fostering of debate about ethically contentious research in science journals; (5) development of an international code of ethical research practice; (6) fostering of public involvement in ethical review and debate through the web.     

开展异种器官移植临床试验的几个关键伦理问题

目前，异种器官移植由于动物道德权、医疗资源分配及危害大众健康等问题而受到广泛地关注与争论，本文提出了四个关键伦理问题，即利弊界限、供研究患者的知情同意、第三方组织的知情同意及临床试验的监督和批准，作为开展异种器官移植临床试验的先决条件。