Abstract
International standards require research involving humans to undergo ethics review by a research ethics committee. Such committees apply local, national, and international policies and regulations in order to ensure the protection of human participants and ensure that research projects have undergone independent scientific review. The committees themselves exist within universities and hospitals or at a national level. However, delicate issues emerge whenever governance arrangements do not ensure the adequate independence of the process and the avoidance of conflicts of interests or when research participants are used primarily for the advancement of science or when commercial benefits are privileged over the betterment of public health advancement. All the elements of the decisional process of an ethics review system must be independent from the organizational structures that have interest in the outcome of the ethics review. International research may raise the issues of shopping for lower national standards and taking advantage of the vulnerable and less adequate national systems of protection. The exportation of research activities that would not be compliant with the regulations of a developed country, which often is the main beneficiary of the research activity, to a developing country where the regulatory requirements are less stringent is called “ethics dumping” and is morally objectionable. We give examples of inadequacies of review and propose safeguards to ensure the adequate balance of interests, including education, improvement of health literacy, and the development of appropriate, transparent, accountable, and robust oversight mechanisms.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anguzu R, Akun PR, Ogwan R et al (2018) Setting up a clinical trial for a novel disease: a case study of the doxycycline for the treatment of nodding syndrome trial – challenges, enablers and lessons learned. Glob Health Action 11(1):1431362. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2018.1431362
Anonymous (2008) Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns. Bull World Health Organ 86(8): 581–582
Anonymous (2014) The ethical cost of offshoring clinical trials. Global Health Watch 4: an alternative world health report. People’s Health Movement, Cape Town, pp 319–329
Bagla P (2013) India’s Supreme Court mandates videotaped consent in clinical trials. Science 363(6423). https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/10/indias-supreme-court-mandates-videotaped-consent-clinical-trials. Accessed 10 Mar 2019
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (2014) Tri-council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans, Ottawa. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2-2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2019
Chatterjee P (2013) India tightens regulation of clinical trials to safeguard participants. Br Med J 346:f1275
Collective (2013) Report of the Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury Expert Committee to formulate policy and guidelines for approval of new drugs, clinical trials and banning of drugs. New Delhi, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. http://admin.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/clinical%20trials1.pdf
Expert Scientific Group on Phase One Clinical Trials, Final Report (2006) London, The Stationary Office
Hedgecoe A (2010) “A form of practical machinery”: the origins of research ethics committees in the UK, 1967–1972. Med Hist 53:331–350
Hedgecoe A (2014) A deviation from standard design? Clinical trials, research ethics committees, and the regulatory co-construction of organizational deviance. Soc Stud Sci 44(1):59–81
International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) (2016) International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Integrated addendum to ICH E6(R2): guideline for good clinical practice E6(R2), Geneva. https://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6/E6_R2__Step_4_2016_1109.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2019
Nada A, Somberg J (2007) First-in-man clinical trials post-TeGenero: a review of the impact of the TeGenero trial on the design, conduct and ethics of FIM trials. Am J Ther 14(6):594–604
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978) The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda, Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002) The ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries. London, Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Parliament of India/Rajya Sabha, Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare, Seventy Second Report (2013) Alleged irregularities in the conduct of studies using human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine by Path in India (Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare). Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi
Sariola S, Jeffery R, Jesani A et al (2018) How civil society organisations changed regulation of clinical trials in India. Sci Cult. https://tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09505431.2018.1493449?needAccess=true. Accessed 10 Mar 2019
Schroeder D, Cook J, Hirsch F et al (2018) Ethics dumping: introduction. In: Schroeder D, Cook J, Hirsch F et al (eds) Ethics dumping. Case studies from north-south research collaborations. Springer Briefs in Research and Innovation Governance, Springer Open, Cham
Shweder RA (2004) Tuskegee re-examined. https://www.spiked-online.com/2004/01/08/tuskegee-re-examined/. Accessed 10 Mar 2019
Srinivasan S (2011) HPV vaccine trials and sleeping watchdogs. Indian J Med Ethics 8(2):73–74. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2011.031
Stark L (2012) Behind closed doors. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
UNESCO (2005) Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146180. Accessed 10 Mar 2019
World Health Organization (2000) Operational guidelines for ethics committees that review biomedical research. WHO, Geneva. https://www.who.int/tdr/publications/documents/ethics.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2019
World Health Organization (2011) Standards and operational guidance for ethics review of health-related research with human participants. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44783/9789241502948_eng.pdf;jsessionid=1955B0172CF16E5CFEC9C66CCE63B8F9?sequence=1. Accessed 10 Mar 2019
World Medical Association (1975) Declaration of Helsinki. https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DoH-Oct1975.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2019
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Carpentier, R., McGillivray, B. (2020). Protecting Participants in Clinical Trials Through Research Ethics Review. In: Iphofen, R. (eds) Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16758-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16759-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities