Appropriateness of no-fault compensation for research-related injuries from an African perspective: an appeal for action by African countries

A proposal for a legally enforceable no-fault compensation framework for clinical trial-related injury in Malaysia

Clinical trials play a critical role in the development of life-enhancing and life-sustaining biomedical advances. It is costly and, regardless of how well-designed and ethically conducted, there are always inherent uncertainties which subsequently expose human participants to the risk of injuries or even death. In Malaysia, compensation for clinical trial-related injury has not been incorporated into standard national regulations or policies. Therefore, when clinical trial-related injuries do occur, such participants cannot be compensated by researchers, and with the absence of specific statutory laws governing trial-related injury within the local legal framework, aggrieved parties need to seek legal redress and can only depend on the existing tort laws. To propose a viable compensation framework, the existing compensation regulations and policies implemented in India and South Africa are analyzed, and their best principles have been recommended. This study proposes the implementation of a no-fault compensation framework in Malaysia which should be disbursed efficiently at minimum administrative cost. This proposed approach should be mandated by the amendment of current laws governing biomedical research and, in the interim, should be adopted voluntarily by research sponsors, institutions and investigators conducting clinical trials in Malaysia.

"At first, I was very afraid"-a qualitative description of participants' views and experiences in the first Human Infection Study in Malawi

Background: Human infection studies (HIS) involve deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with a pathogen in a controlled environment to understand infection and support the development of effective vaccines or treatments. HIS research is expanding to many low and middle-income settings to accelerate vaccine development. Given the implementation of the first HIS research to establish the experimental human pneumococcal carriage model's feasibility, we sought to understand the participant's opinions and experiences. Methods: We used a qualitative, descriptive approach to understand participants perceptions and experiences on HIS participation. Sixteen healthy adult participants were invited to participate in in-depth exit interviews to discuss their experiences, motivations and concerns. Results: Our findings showed that the likelihood of participation in HIS research rests on three essential conditions: motivation to participate, compensation and advocacy. The motivation and decision to participate was based on reasons including altruism, patriotism, monetary and material incentives, and while compensation was deemed appropriate, concerns about unanticipated research-related risks were raised. Participant advocate groups were recommended for increasing awareness and educating others in the broader community about HIS research. Conclusions: Participants' experiences of HIS in Malawi provide the basis of what can be acceptable in HIS research in lower-income countries and areas where study procedures could be adjusted.

"At first, I was very afraid"-a qualitative description of participants' views and experiences in the first Human Infection Study in Malawi

Background: Human infection studies (HIS) involve deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with a pathogen in a controlled environment to understand infection and support the development of effective vaccines or treatments. HIS research is expanding to many low and middle-income settings to accelerate vaccine development. Given the implementation of the first HIS research to establish the experimental human pneumococcal carriage model's feasibility, we sought to understand the participant's opinions and experiences. Methods: We used a qualitative, descriptive approach to understand participants perceptions and experiences on HIS participation. Sixteen healthy adult participants were invited to participate in in-depth exit interviews to discuss their experiences, motivations and concerns. Results: Our findings showed that the likelihood of participation in HIS research rests on three essential conditions: motivation to participate, compensation and advocacy. The motivation and decision to participate was based on reasons including altruism, patriotism, monetary and material incentives, and while compensation was deemed appropriate, concerns about unanticipated research-related risks were raised. Participant advocate groups were recommended for increasing awareness and educating others in the broader community about HIS research. Conclusions: Participants' experiences of HIS in Malawi provide the basis of what can be acceptable in HIS research in lower-income countries and areas where study procedures could be adjusted.

The Quest for Compensation for Research-Related Injury in the United States: A New Proposal

In the U.S., there is no requirement for research sponsors to compensate human research subjects who experience injuries as a result of their participation. In this article, we review the moral justifications that compel the establishment of a better research-related injury compensation system. We explore how other countries and certain institutions within the U.S. have adopted various systems of compensation. The existence of these systems demonstrates both that the U.S. lags behind other nations in its protection of human research subjects and that the establishment of a compensation system is both practical and feasible. We then examine factors which have prevented the U.S. from establishing its own compensation system. We consider possible alternatives for the U.S. by examining the advantages and disadvantages of both established and proposed systems. We offer a new proposal that addresses the justice concerns which compel the establishment of a national compensation system, distributes the burdens of such a system on multiple stakeholders that benefit from research, and has the additional advantage of minimizing the administrative and logistical challenges associated with initiating such a system.