Some questionable premises about research ethics

Ethics, "Vulnerability," and Feminist Participatory Action Research With a Disability Community

We consider the work of research ethics boards and funding models for research that at times are incompatible with the relationship building required for feminist participatory action research with a disability community. We explore the barriers that emerged for university- and community-based partners as they asserted individual and collective identities, and negotiated boundaries, access, and power relations in the process of designing and conducting research. This critical reflection contributes to our understanding of the structures of academic research funding, ethics approval, and how problematic conceptualizations of vulnerability embedded in the Tri-Council Policy Statement and research ethics board practices impact on relationship building and the research process. Recommendations for change will be helpful to researchers studying disability, those using participatory action research, and individuals serving on ethics review boards.

Tensiones retóricas y semánticas en ética de la investigación

Comienza en recientes años un movimiento de revisión que utiliza la retórica y las desarticulaciones semánticas para legitimar prácticas que tradicionalmente se rechazarían como transgresiones éticas. En la ética de investigación se valida el reclutamiento de personas incapaces de ejercer su autonomía y se propone la incorporación de individuos vulnerados en la investigación para satisfacer el bien común. Esta propuesta atenta contra normativas establecidas que prohíben preferir intereses sociales o científicos por encima de los individuales, utilizando arbitrariamente la idea del bien público, puesto que la mayoría de las investigaciones sirven a intereses particulares de orden corporativo. Se debilita las definiciones de coerción y explotación, justificando la inclusión de probandos carentes de competencia mental y legitimando prácticas que en el entendido usual de estos conceptos son francas transgresiones a la ética de investigación con seres humanos. Cada vez más proyectos de investigación son trasladados a Latinoamérica, haciendo necesario que nuestra bioética se mantenga alerta frente a los intentos de debilitar la protección de individuos y comunidades que participan en estudios patrocinados desde instituciones comerciales del Primer Mundo.

Consent for long-term storage of blood samples by Indigenous Australian research participants: the DRUID Study experience

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the characteristics of people who do and do not agree to the long-term storage and use of their biological materials, or about potential biases that may be introduced as a result of differential consent. More specifically, concerns about tissue storage and use are especially relevant among population groups for whom blood and other biological materials are culturally significant, such as Indigenous Australians. Using data from a 2003-2005 study of 1,004 Indigenous Australians, we examined participants' choices regarding long-term storage of excess blood for possible use in future studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 55% of participants agreed to long-term storage. Among 854 participants with a fasting blood sample and completed questionnaire, consent for storage was more likely among those aged 45+ years than those 15-44 (odds ratio (OR) = 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14, 2.11), and was similar for males and females. After adjustment for age and other covariates using logistic regression, consent was more likely for never smokers than current smokers (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.04, 2.10), those reporting any non-Indigenous grandparent(s) (OR = 2.07, 95% CI: 1.50, 2.85), and those whose consent form was administered/witnessed by an Indigenous staff member (OR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.94). Consent for long-term storage was associated with only small differences (generally less than +/- 5%) in the results of assays performed on all participants' blood samples as part of the baseline health examination.

CONCLUSION

These data show that consent for blood storage among these research participants was neither rare nor universal. It was associated with some socio-demographic/cultural factors but not with blood biochemistry. Decisions about requesting or giving consent for storage and later use of tissue samples must recognize a number of important, and potentially competing, ethical and logistical considerations.