Anchor bias, autonomy, and 20th-century bioethicists' blindness to racism

The central thesis of this article is that by anchoring bioethics' core conceptual armamentarium in a four-principled theory emphasizing autonomy and treating justice as a principle of allocation, theorists inadvertently biased 20th-century bioethical scholarship against addressing such subjects as ableism, anti-Black racism, classism, and other forms of discrimination, placing them outside of the scope of bioethics research and scholarship. It is also claimed that these scope limitations can be traced to the displacement of the nascent concept of respect for persons-a concept designed to address classist and racist discrimination-with the morally solipsistic concept of autonomy.

Ethicizing history. Bioethical representations of Nazi medicine

The article presents and analyzes different approaches of U.S. bioethicists in comprehending the Nazi medical crimes after 1945. The account is divided into two sections: one dealing with discussions on research ethics and the Nuremberg Code up until the 1970s and the other ranging from the 1970s to the present and highlighting bioethics' engagement with Nazi analogies. The portrayal of different bioethical scholars, institutions, and documents-most notably Henry K. Beecher, Jay Katz, the Belmont Report, the Hastings Center, Arthur L. Caplan, and Robert M. Veatch-provides a nuanced interpretation of the motives that bioethicists held and the strategies that they applied to establish an understanding of the Nazi medical crimes and their relation to contemporary bioethical issues. In this, the different approaches shared a common goal: To integrate the Nazi medical crimes into an ethical framework by means of selective acknowledgments and representation of their history.

The creation of the Belmont Report and its effect on ethical principles: a historical study

The Belmont Report continues to be held in high regard, and most bioethical analyses conducted in recent years have presumed that it affects United States federal regulations. However, the assessments of the report's creators are sharply divided. Understanding the historic reputation of this monumental report is thus crucial. We first recount the historical context surrounding the creation of this report. Subsequently, we review the process involved in developing ethical guidelines and describe the report's features. Additionally, we analyze the effect of unfolding events on the subsequent creation of federal regulations, especially on gene therapy clinical trials. Moreover, throughout this paper we evaluate the ethical principles outlined in this report and describe how they overlap with the issue of protecting socially vulnerable groups. Based on the analysis, we conclude that the features of the Belmont Report cannot be considered as having affected the basic sections of the federal regulations for ethical reviews that were made uniform in 1981. Nevertheless, regarding the regulations on gene therapy clinical trials-which were at first expected to be applicable to research involving children-in addition to implementing policies regarding the public review of protocols that passed ethical review, this report's principles are clearly reflected in the key notes that should have been referred to when the report was created.

Ethical Criteria for Improved Human Subject Protections in Phase I Healthy Volunteer Trials

Phase I healthy volunteer trials test the safety and tolerability of investigational pharmaceuticals. In them, participants are exposed to study-drug risks without the possibility of direct medical benefit and typically must spend days or weeks in a residential research facility. Monetary payments are used to incentivize enrollment and compensate participants for their time. Together, these features of phase I healthy volunteer trials create a research context that differs markedly from most other clinical research, including by enrolling disproportionate numbers of economically disadvantaged people of color as participants. Due to these unique trial features and participation patterns, traditional biomedical research oversight offers inadequate ethical and policy guidance for phase I healthy volunteer research. This article details five ethical criteria crafted to be responsive to the particularities of this type of research: translational science value, fair opportunity and burden sharing, fair compensation for service, experiential welfare, and enhanced voice and recourse.

Extending Research Protections to Tribal Communities

The history of research in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities has been marked by unethical practices, resulting in mistrust and reluctance to participate in research. Harms are not limited to individual persons-tribal communities experience harmful misrepresentation and generalizations disrespectful of AI/AN groups' heritage, cultures, and beliefs. The Belmont Report's research ethics principles are applied primarily to protect individual research participants. The principles of sovereignty and solidarity are argued to be important concepts in extending Belmont's research protections to tribal communities. Sovereignty, an expression of respect for autonomy at a group level, is the basis for tribal self-determination. The principle of solidarity provides an ethical underpinning for tribes' obligations to protect community interests and culture. Extension of Belmont through these principles should serve to minimize harms to AI/AN groups in research.

Ethical considerations for research involving pregnant women living with HIV and their young children: a systematic review of the empiric literature and discussion

BACKGROUND

The proper and ethical inclusion of PWLHIV and their young children in research is paramount to ensure valid evidence is generated to optimize treatment and care. Little empirical data exists to inform ethical considerations deemed most critical to these populations. Our study aimed to systematically review the empiric literature regarding ethical considerations for research participation of PWLHIV and their young children.

METHODS

We conducted this systematic review in partnership with a medical librarian. A search strategy was designed and performed within the following electronic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We screened titles and abstracts using the following inclusion criteria: (1) a study population of PWLHIV or children under 5 years of age; and (2) collection of qualitative or quantitative data regarding ethics of research participation. Excluded were reviews, commentaries, policy statements, clinical care-related ethics concerns, abstracts, case studies, or studies unrelated to HIV research. Studies were appraised for quality, data were extracted, and studies were qualitatively analyzed using a principle-based ethical framework within the Belmont Report.

RESULTS

Of the 7470 titles identified, 538 full-text articles were reviewed for eligibility and only three articles met full criteria for inclusion within this review. While we allowed for inclusion of studies involving young children born to mothers with HIV, only articles focused on PWLHIV were identified. Within the results of these studies, four themes emerged: (1) adequacy of informed consent; (2) consideration of paternal involvement; (3) balancing risks; and (4) access to research and treatment. A strength of this review is that it included perspectives of international research investigators, community leaders, and male partners. However, only two studies collected empiric data from PWLHIV regarding their experiences participating in research CONCLUSION: Researchers and funding agencies should be aware of these considerations and appreciate the value of and critical need for formative research to ensure clinical trials involving PWLHIV promote ethical, well-informed research participation and, ultimately, improve care outcomes. More research is needed to create a comprehensive ethical framework for researchers when conducting studies with PWLHIV.

Researcher perspectives on including people who use drugs in clinical research

Background: People who use drugs are commonly excluded from clinical research despite being disproportionately impacted by numerous health conditions. Recent work indicates that community-recruited individuals report low support of research inclusion for persons reporting substance use.Objective: This study conducted a mixed-method assessment of researchers' attitudes on including persons reporting substance use in clinical research.Methods: Respondents (N = 168; 58% female; 58% psychologists) recruited via scientific society listservs and Twitter completed a survey containing two hypothetical research vignettes. Quantitative items evaluated respondents' endorsement of research participation by healthy adults, people who use drugs, and vulnerable populations. Qualitative items included open-ended questions asking reasons why people who use drugs should and should not participate in research.Results: Respondents reported significantly lower support for research participation by people who use drugs compared to healthy adults (p <.001). Open-ended responses concerning the inclusion of people who use drugs included themes relevant to the Belmont Principles (e.g., capacity to consent) and data quality (e.g., "bad data," poor compliance).Conclusion: Although lower support for research participation by people who use drugs was observed compared to healthy adults, the magnitude of this difference was smaller than reported for prior community-recruited respondents. These findings emphasize salient factors that may serve as both protections for and barriers to inclusion of people who use drugs in research. Initiatives including adoption of person-first language, addressing stereotyping of people who use drugs, and emphasizing the benefits of including these populations in clinical research should be explored to reduce bias while retaining needed protections.

Should the Regulation of Research Misconduct Be Integrated with the Ethics Framework Promulgated in The Belmont Report?

The federal research misconduct regulations finalized in 2005 did not incorporate important principles regarding human subjects protections articulated in The Belmont Report, yet research misconduct can involve harms to research subjects and to subsequent patients whose treatments are based on false research findings. Consistency with the Belmont principles would require assuring regular monitoring to detect research misconduct, tracing effects of research misconduct on trial participants and informing them of these effects, and assuring timely correction of published reports of research findings if research misconduct related to the study was subsequently discovered. Research misconduct has historically been viewed as a matter for the scientific community to manage; it is actually a threat to the welfare of human subjects and ethically ought to be treated as such.

Facebook Recruitment and the Protection of Human Subjects

Social and behavioral scientists increasingly use Facebook to recruit research participants. Given the everchanging social media landscape, it is important to consider the ethical principles of using such a strategy. The aims of this methodological article are to (a) examine Facebook recruitment in light of the ethical principles of the Belmont Report (respect for persons, beneficence, and justice), (b) describe ethical challenges that may be faced in Facebook recruitment, and (c) provide recommendations for researchers interested in adopting this recruitment method. Ethical challenges inherent in Facebook recruitment include selecting subjects fairly, privacy, and data security. Overall, Facebook is a beneficial resource for recruiting participants into research; however, researchers need to be aware of their responsibility in protecting human subjects.

Ethical considerations in the design, execution, and analysis of clinical trials of chronic pain treatments

Introduction:

In the field of pain research, clinical trials may randomize over 500 subjects and include more than 150 sites spanning over a dozen countries.

Methods:

This review examines the ethical considerations affecting clinical trial design, execution, and analysis of trials for chronic pain. The Belmont Report has been the touchstone for human studies protection efforts since 1979. Commissioned by the U.S. government in response to ethical failures in medical research, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the report emphasizes 3 basic principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Trial design and sample size have important ethical implications.

Conclusions:

Measures to enhance trial transparency and combat publication and many other types of bias should be implemented.

Rethinking the Belmont Report?

This article reflects on the relevance and applicability of the Belmont Report nearly four decades after its original publication. In an exploration of criticisms that have been raised in response to the report and of significant changes that have occurred within the context of biomedical research, five primary themes arise. These themes include the increasingly vague boundary between research and practice, unique harms to communities that are not addressed by the principle of respect for persons, and how growing complexity and commodification in research have shed light on the importance of transparency. The repercussions of Belmont's emphasis on the protection of vulnerable populations is also explored, as is the relationship between the report's ethical principles and their applications. It is concluded that while the Belmont Report was an impressive response to the ethical issues of its day, the field of research ethics involving human subjects may have outgrown it.

Personalized Medicine: Ethical Aspects

In our time of genome-based personalized medicine, clinical research and clinical medicine are accelerating at a quick pace. Faster and cheaper DNA sequencing and protein profiling, microfluidic devices for capturing blood biomarkers, nanoparticles for precise drug delivery and enhanced imaging, rapid computational analysis of massive data inputs, and other technological wonders coalesce to create a kind of Moore's Law for medicine. Needs are obvious, knowledge grows, capital becomes available, but these factors are not entirely sufficient to make health more achievable. Personalized medicine also requires social acceptability, not only for accuracy and efficacy but also because medicine is a moral domain. This chapter deals with medical ethics that determine the choices a society makes regarding healthcare; and it has not always been a steady, morally correct course of progress. Indeed, medical ethics has largely derived from socio-scientific calamities in the past. Personalized medicine, with its enhanced capacity to access the individuality of illness, must have a continuously evolving feedback mechanism-the most important element being the physician-patient relationship-which is its ethical footing.

The research misconception

Recently, several researchers and philosophers argued that clinical research trials are not therapy. Their position is based on foundational research ethics documents, such as the Belmont Report, on conceptual analysis, and on the general way clinical trials are conducted. After examining and rejecting these arguments, we claim that good research is consistent with good therapy; that often trials are good therapy; and that a blanket attack on clinical trials as non-therapeutic creates a research misconception. This misconception is potentially harmful because it could weaken trial recruitment, could adversely affect funding for trials, and could overturn needed moral safeguards on therapeutic trials. Our more careful and accurate analysis of the nature of clinical trials can avoid such problems.

Financial conflicts of interest in biomedical human subject research

The purpose of this paper is to examine the past, present and future of financial conflict of interest regulation in biomedical human subject testing. Part I will briefly review the forces giving rise to the current controversy. Part II will examine the more influential ethical codes on human subject testing and argue that they are inconclusive on the subject of financial conflicts of interest. Part III will examine the various regulations now in place and identify their serious flaws. Part IV will critique the leading proposals for reform. The Conclusion will synthesize the best features of the various proposals for reform and suggest improvements left unaddressed by these proposals.

Respect: or, how respect for persons became respect for autonomy

This article provides an intellectual archeology of how the term "respect" has functioned in the field of bioethics. I argue that over time the function of the term has shifted, with a significant turning point occurring in 1979. Prior to 1979, the term "respect" connoted primarily the notion of "respect for persons" which functioned as an umbrella which conferred protection to autonomous persons and those with compromised autonomy. But in 1979, with the First Edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics by Beauchamp and Childress, and the report of the Ethical Advisory Board (EAB) of the (then) Department of Health, Education, and Welfare entitled Research on In Vitro Fertilization, usage shifts from "respect for persons" to "respect for autonomy." Two results: 1) those with compromised autonomy are no longer protected by the canons of "respect" but rather the less overriding canons of beneficence; and 2) the term "respect" functions increasingly as a rhetorical device in public bioethics discourse.

The interface between the practice of medical genetics and human genetic research: what every genetic counselor needs to know

Genetic counselors have historically used human genetic research as an advanced information resource for their patients. Most commonly, this has been via access to information provided by gene identification studies in advance of commercial testing. More recently genetic counselors have been participating in human genetic research studies as part of the investigative team. This review provides a framework to help genetic counselors in research and clinical practice understand the historical perspectives, ethical principles, and federal regulations that govern the current practice of human subject research. Special consideration is given to the IRB process and unique issues in human genetic research. This overview is intended to help improve the ability of genetic counselors to act as advocates for their patients.

Conducting research on sensitive topics with adolescents: ethical and developmental considerations

Promotion of adolescent health requires well-designed scientific studies that determine the prevalence of the problem of interest, identify risk and resilience factors, and evaluate methods for prevention and intervention. Many adolescent-related health problems are typically considered sensitive by society (e.g., sexual and substance use behaviors), thus further complicating the research process. Using the principles of the Belmont Report as its framework, this paper draws on developmental theories to discuss ethical issues specific to the conduct of research with adolescents. Our ability to use developmentally sensitive research practices will be enhanced by further understanding of issues associated with risk and benefit assessment by the adolescent, their parents, and institutional review boards, and by delineating ways to ensure that adolescent participants are adequately protected and have a developmentally affirming experience.

Rethinking research ethics

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.

Protection of human subjects in intervention research for suicidal behavior

OBJECTIVE

Three domains of ethical conduct outlined in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 1998 Belmont Report on protection of human research subjects-respect for persons, beneficence, and justice-have posed specific dilemmas in the design of intervention studies for suicidal behavior. These issues include questions about suicidal patients' capacity to provide informed consent, the risk of some lethal outcomes, the possibility of imminent suicide risk associated with patients' right to discontinue the study treatment, and the need for a higher level of monitoring of suicidal patients. The authors examine these and other issues and discuss ways they can be addressed in research design.

METHOD

To illustrate solutions to these bioethical tensions, the authors describe the design of a randomized, controlled trial of pharmacotherapy for suicidal behavior in bipolar disorder.

RESULTS

Using surrogate outcome measures, allowing prescription of rescue medications, integrating psychosocial interventions, and providing close clinical monitoring enable researchers to conduct research on suicidal behavior while maximizing adherence to the ethical recommendations outlined in the Belmont Report. Alternative study designs, such as add-on trials, in which the study treatment or placebo is added on to known effective treatment, may also be used in research on suicidal behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to design a randomized, controlled trial that minimizes the risk of morbidity and mortality for suicidal patients with bipolar disorder, but deliberation is required to address the bioethical tensions that arise.

Regulatory and ethical principles in research involving children and individuals with developmental disabilities

Children and individuals with developmental disabilities (DD) compared to typical participants are disadvantaged not only by virtue of being vulnerable to risks inherent in research participation but also by the higher likelihood of exclusion from research altogether. Current regulatory and ethical guidelines although necessary for their protection do not sufficiently ensure fair distributive justice. Yet, in view of disproportionately higher burdens of co-occurring physical and mental disorders in individuals with DD, they are better positioned to benefit from research by equitable participation. Greater elucidation of this ethical dilemma is called for by researchers, institutional review boards, and funding agencies to urgently redress the imbalance. This article discusses many of the regulatory principles to ensure better research participation of children and individuals with DD: human rights, validity, distributive justice, beneficence/nonmaleficence, and autonomy.

Practical moral codes in the transgenic organism debate

In one study funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, people from North Dakota were interviewed to discover which moral principles they use in evaluating the morality of transgenic organisms and their introduction into markets. It was found that although the moral codes the human subjects employed were very similar, their views on transgenics were vastly different. In this paper, the codes that were used by the respondents are developed, compared to that of the academically composed Belmont Report, and then modified to create the more practical Common Moral Code. At the end, it is shown that the Common Moral Code has inherent inconsistency flaws that might be resolvable, but would require extensive work on the definition of terms and principles. However, the effort is worthwhile, especially if it results in a common moral code that all those involved in the debate are willing to use in negotiating a resolution to their differences.

The recruitment of normal healthy volunteers: a review of the literature on the use of financial incentives

Unresolved issues of ethical, methodological, and legal concerns in the use of normal healthy volunteers persist. Financial incentives in their recruitment offer a unique ethical dilemma because of questions surrounding payment. A review of literature was conducted to obtain research systematically examining volunteer motivation and the role offinancial incentives. The primary selection criterion was motivation and payment to volunteers; seven studies met the criterion for review. Studies that have systematically investigated volunteer motivation have found financial rewards to be an important motivator among normal healthy volunteers in their decision to participate in clinical trials. Also evident is that differences based on demographic characteristics exist in the motivation and rates of volunteerism. Ethical issues surrounding the use of normal healthy volunteers are discussed, with attention to the issue offinancial incentives (e.g., economically vulnerable volunteers, undue inducements). Regulations, guidelines, and recommendations are discussed with regard to volunteers and financial incentives.

A critical appraisal of protections for aboriginal communities in biomedical research

As scientists target communities for research into the etiology, especially the genetic determinants of common diseases, there have been calls for the protection of communities. This paper identifies the distinct characteristics of aboriginal communities and their implications for research in these communities. It also contends that the framework in the Belmont Report is inadequate in this context and suggests a fourth principle of respect for communities. To explore how such a principle might be specified and operationalized, it reviews existing guidelines for protecting aboriginal communities and points out problems with these guidelines and areas for further work.

Research ethics in Internet-enabled research: human subjects issues and methodological myopia

As Internet resources are used more frequently for research on social and psychological behavior, concerns grow about whether characteristics of such research affect human subjects protections. Early efforts to address such concerns have done more to identify potential problems than to evaluate them or to seek solutions, leaving bodies charged with human subjects oversight in a quagmire. This article critiques some of these issues in light of the US Code of Federal Regulations' policies for the Protection of Human Subjects, and argues that some of the issues have no pertinence when examined in the context of common methodological approaches that previous commentators failed to consider. By separating applicable contexts from those that are not, and by identifying cases where subjects' characteristics are irrelevant and/or impossible to provide, oversight committees may be able to consider research applications more appropriately, and investigators may be less ethically bound to ascertain and demonstrate those characteristics.

The concept of risk in biomedical research involving human subjects

An established ethical principle of biomedical research involving human subjects stipulates that risk to subjects should be proportionate to an experiment's potential benefits. Sometimes this principle is imprecisely stated as a requirement that 'risks and benefits' be balanced. First, it is noted why this language is imprecise. Second, the persistence of such language is attributed to how it functions as a rhetorical trope. Finally, an argument is made that such a trope is infelicitous because it may not achieve its intended persuasive purposes. More importantly, it should be avoided because it masks the important role that chance plays in clinical research. Risk is the possibility of harm. As a precondition of harm it is unintended and undesirable in projects of biomedical research. It requires ethical vigilance. As a vehicle of chance, however, it is both intended and desirable. It requires methodological appreciation.

Research misconduct--an indictment and possible solution

The core problems of scientific misconduct are systemic to the infrastructure of the conduct of scientific research itself, and therefore are probably immune to any short-term solutions. Renaming federal agencies, reorganizing monitoring activities, appointing new personnel, and other similar proposed remedies are necessary but insufficient measures. Indeed, the etiological factors in misconduct include an erosion of trust that stands in the way of the ethical integrity flowing from the major ethical principles identified in the Belmont Report. To make those principles applicable and useful to meet the challenges of current research activities, especially those involving human subjects, depends on our ability to foster an unprecedented cooperation of community resources.

Protecting communities in research: philosophical and pragmatic challenges

The issue of the protection of communities in clinical research first arose 10 years ago in studies conducted in technologically developing countries by scientists from technologically developed nations. The question was, which ethical standards ought to apply, those of the Western investigators or local standards?

Anticipatory planning for research participants with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia

Current and coincident biomedical advances make this an opportune time to encourage research with individuals who have fluctuating periods of incapacity caused by psychotic disorders like schizophrenia. Effecting research with this heterogeneous population who may have impaired decision-making capacity that diminishes their autonomy, while honoring their liberty and safeguarding their well-being, may be difficult to achieve. Federal regulations and guidelines in regard to research with this population are insufficient and cause additional obstacles. Use of research advance directives that allow for the appointment of a surrogate decision maker, the designation of a research monitor, and delineation of specific safeguards for the research participants also may provide protection for investigators and foster and improve community trust in medical research.

Genetic research as therapy: implications of "gene therapy" for informed consent

Authors argue that characterization of gene transfer research as "gene therapy" has compromised informed consent in the current environment of regulatory exceptions, routinized consent, fostered therapeutic misconceptions, and oversold research.

Research with cognitively impaired subjects. Unfinished business in the regulation of human research

In 1978, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research issued an important report that addressed the difficult ethical issues arising in research involving subjects with mental disabilities. However, because of irreconcilable conflicts between the scientific community and rights-oriented advocacy groups, the federal government never issued the special regulations pertaining to these issues that had been envisioned by the National Commission. Because these important ethical issues have not yet been adequately addressed by policy-making bodies, protection of cognitively impaired subjects depends too heavily on the diverse ethical sensitivities of individual investigators and on ad hoc responses of particular institutional review boards. Researchers should support a credible and authoritative process for reexamining and resolving ethical issues relating to research with cognitively impaired subjects. This can be accomplished without leading to the stalemate that doomed the National Commission's proposals. The challenge is to forge a consensus on ethical guidelines and safeguards that will most reasonably accommodate the goals of protecting the dignity and well-being of research subjects while avoiding undue impediments to valuable scientific inquiry.