Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Research Ethics in the Context of Transition: Gaps in Policies and Programs on the Protection of Research Participants in the Selected Countries of Central and Eastern Europe

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the ability of countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) to ensure appropriate protection of research participants in the field of increasingly globalizing biomedical research. By applying an analytical framework for identifying gaps in policies and programs for human subjects protection to four countries of CEE—Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, substantial gaps in the scope and content of relevant policies and major impediments to program performance have been revealed. In these countries, public policies on the protection of research participants lack consistency and reliable mechanisms for their implementation. Impediments to program performance most often relate to inadequacies in the national research ethics systems with regard to organizational structure, budgetary support, supervision, and training. The level of research ethics capacity varies from country to country and depends on socio-economic and political factors of post-communist transition. The breadth and depth of the problems identified suggest that the current level of protection for research participants in CEE might be inadequate to the challenges posed by the globalization of biomedical research. In CEE countries, there is a need for strengthening research ethics capacity through modification of relevant policies and improvement of program management. The differences among the countries call for further research on identifying the best approaches for filling the gaps in the policies and programs aimed at ensuring effective protection of research participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Advanced Certificate Program in Research Ethics for Central and Eastern Europe is offered by Union Graduate College (USA) in partnership with the Department of Medical History and Ethics of Vilnius University (Lithuania). It is supported by U.S. National Institutes of Health Research Grant R25 TW7085, funded by the Fogarty International Center, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

References

  • Borovećki, A., Orešković, S., & ten Have, H. (2005). Ethics and the structures of health care in the European countries in transition: Hospital ethics committees in Croatia. British Medical Journal, 331(7510), 227–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buse, K., Mays, N., & Walt, G. (2012). Making health policy. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldron, P., Gavrilova, S., & Kropf, S. (2012). Why (not) go east? Comparison of findings from FDA Investigational New Drug study site inspections performed in Central and Eastern Europe with results from the USA, Western Europe, and other parts of the world. Drug Design, Development and Therapy, 6, 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. D. (2009). The case for globalization: Ethical and business considerations in clinical research. Value of Insight Consulting [Commissioned by Association of Clinical Research Organizations]. http://www.acrohealth.org/globalization-white-paper.html. Accessed 26 September 2015.

  • Coleman, C. H., & Bouësseau, M. C. (2008). How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Medical Ethics, 9, 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). (2002). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: CIOMS. http://www.cioms.ch/images/stories/CIOMS/guidelines/guidelines_nov_2002_blurb.htm. Accessed 26 September 2015.

  • Council of Europe (CoE). (1997). Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine. Oviedo: CoE. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/164.htm. Accessed 26 September 2015.

  • Council of Europe (CoE). (2005). Additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine, concerning biomedical research. Strasbourg: CoE. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/195.htm. Accessed 26 September 2015.

  • Czarkowski, M., & Rozanowski, K. (2009). Polish research ethics committees in the European Union system of assessing medical experiments. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 201–212. doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9113-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union of April 4, 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 121, 34–44.

  • Drakulich, A. (2009). The emerging markets of the East. Pharmaceutical Technology, 33, 50–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dranseika, V., Gefenas, E., Cekanauskaite, A., Hug, K., et al. (2011). Twenty years of human research ethics committees in the Baltic States. Developing World Bioethics, 11, 48–54. doi:10.1111/j.1471-8847.2010.00288.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgar, H., & Rothman, D. J. (2003). The Institutional review board and beyond: Future changes to the ethics of human experimentation. In E. J. Emanuel, R. A. Crouch, J. D. Arras, et al. (Eds.), Ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical research: Readings and commentary (pp. 436–440). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel, E. J., Wood, A., Fleischman, A., et al. (2004). Oversight of human participants’ research: Identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Annals of Internal Medicine, 141, 282–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Medicines Agency (EMA). (2013). Clinical trials submitted in marketing-authorisation applications to the European Medicines Agency. London: EMA.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC) official website. National Information: Poland. http://www.eurecnet.org/information/poland.html. Accessed 26 September 2015.

  • Famenka, A. (2011). Ethical review of biomedical research in Belarus: Current status, problems and perspectives. Romanian Journal of Bioethics, 9(2), 74–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (2004). State-building. Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. Ithaca, USA: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambrill, S. (2008). Central and Eastern Europe triples global trial participation. Centerwatch Monthly, 15, 8–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefenas, E. (2009). Application of international guidelines to national regulations on research: Building research ethics infrastructure in Lithuania. In F. Lolas (Ed.), Dimensiones Éticas de las regulaciones en Salud (pp. 127–140). Santiago: CIEB.

  • Gefenas, E., Dranseika, V., Cekanauskaite, A., Hug, K., et al. (2010). Non-equivalent stringency of ethical review in the Baltic States: A sign of a systematic problem in Europe? Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 435–439. doi:10.1136/jme.2009.035030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasa, J. (2000). Ethics Committees in Central and Eastern Europe. Bratislava: Charis - IMEB Fdn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR). (2007). Fostering research ethics infrastructure in the developing world and transition societies: Report of the eight annual meeting. Vilnius: GFBR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyder, A. A., Dawson, L., Bachani, A. M., & Lavery, J. (2009). Moving from research ethics review to research ethics systems in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet, 373, 862–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) Working Group. (1996). ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: guideline for good clinical practice E6 (R1). In International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use (vol. 10).

  • Kaunas REC official website http://lsmuni.lt/lt/struktura/akademiniai-padaliniai/kauno-regioninis-biomedicininiu-tyrimu-etikos-komitetas/. Accessed 26 September 2015.

  • Lamas, E., Ferrer, M., Molina, A., Salinas, R., et al. (2010). A comparative analysis of biomedical research ethics regulation systems in Europe and Latin America with regard to the protection of human subjects. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 750–753. doi:10.1136/jme.2009.035097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lithuanian Bioethics Committee official website http://bioetika.sam.lt/index.php?-145435774. Accessed 26 September 2015.

  • McNeil, C. (2007). Local or central? Debate over institutional review boards continues as alternative options emerge. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 99, 502–503. doi:10.1093/jnci/djk157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus. (2006). The statement on the National Bioethics Committee. Decree No. 274 on April 17.

  • Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus. (2008). The Statement on RECs. Decree No. 55 on March 28.

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2002). The ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechel, B., & McKee, M. (2009). Health reform in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Lancet, 374, 1186–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. (2000). Republic of Lithuania Law on Ethics of Biomedical Research. http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_e?p_id=148740. Accessed 26 September 2015.

  • Silis, V. (2010). Research ethics system in Latvia: Structure, functioning and problems. DILEMATA, International Journal of Applied Ethics, 2, 55–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strosberg, M. A., Gefenas, E., & Famenka, A. (2014). Research ethics review: Identifying public policy and program gaps. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(2), 3–11. doi:10.1525/jer.2014.9.2.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2015). ClinicalTrials.gov database https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/search/map. Accessed 26 September 2015.

  • Vilnius REC official website http://www.mf.vu.lt/lt/content/vilniaus-regioninio-biomedicininiu-tyrimu-etikos-komiteto-informacija. Accessed 26 September 2015.

  • Waligora, M. (2013). Failures in clinical trials in the European Union: Lessons from the Polish experience. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1087–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO). (2000). Operational guidelines for ethics committees that review biomedical research. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study has been supported by U.S. National Institutes of Health Research Grant R25 TW7085, funded by the Fogarty International Center, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Fogarty International Center or the National Institutes of Health. I am very grateful to the co-directors of the Advanced Certificate Program in Research Ethics for CEE—Martin Strosberg, Sean Philpott-Jones and Eugenijus Gefenas, for their continued support, encouragement and helpful comments on methodology and content of this study. I also want to thank anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive suggestions how to make this paper clearer.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrei Famenka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Famenka, A. Research Ethics in the Context of Transition: Gaps in Policies and Programs on the Protection of Research Participants in the Selected Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 1689–1706 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9723-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9723-4

Keywords

Navigation