Current Environmental Health Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 142–155

Ethics Guidelines in Environmental Epidemiology: Their Development and Challenges We Face

Ethics and Policy (M Tondel, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Ethics and Policy

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review integrates historical developments and key events in bringing ethics into epidemiology in general and into environmental epidemiology in particular. The goal is to provide context for and discern among the various approaches and motivations that drive the need for ethical conduct in support of the public interest.

Recent Findings

The need for ethics guidelines in epidemiology is different from developments in other biomedical-related fields by virtue of its focus on populations rather than on individuals. The need for ethics guidelines in environmental epidemiology as a subspecialty of epidemiology stems from the larger scale of its mission than that of epidemiology per se.

Summary

Ethics guidelines in the field of environmental epidemiology have been established. They articulate not only the profession’s core values and mission, but more specifically, they address the environmental epidemiologist’s obligations to the participants in research, to colleagues, and to employers. They are the product of consensus, scholarship, and diligent stewardship over several decades. The next challenge is ensuring their value and impact. The forces that support professional and institutional success, and the power of special interests, are the major threats to achieving the goals of ethical conduct and research for the public good. In environmental epidemiology, these threats have global implications.

Keywords

Conflicting interests Code of ethics Normative practices Standards of practice Regulatory controls and implementation Funding and research sponsorship 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •Of importance ••Of major importance

  1. 1.
    American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights & Law Program: Part of the Center of Science, Policy, and Society Programs. 2016. https://www.aaas.org/program/scientific-responsibility-human-rights-law. Accessed 18 Oct 2016.
  2. 2.
    Chalk R, Frankel MS, Chafter SB. AAAS Professional Ethics Project: professional ethics activities in the scientific and engineering societies (AAAS Publication No. 80-R-4). AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility: Washington; 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: CIOMS/WHO; 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shuster E. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg code. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(20):1436–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindert J, Stein Y, Guggenheim H, Jaakkola JJK, Strous RD. How ethics failed—the role of psychiatrists and physicians in Nazi programs from exclusion to extermination, 1933-1945. Public Health Rev. 2013;34(1):1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sass HM. Reichsrundschreiben 1931: pre-Nuremberg German regulations concerning new therapy and human experimentation. J Med Philos. 1983;8(2):99–111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis study at Tuskegee: the Tuskegee Timeline. 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm. Accessed 18 Oct 2016.
  8. 8.
    International Military Tribunal. Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Vol. II: “The Medical Case”, “The Milch Case”. Washington: U.S: Government Printing Office; 1949. p. 181–2.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dunn CM, Chadwick G. Protecting study volunteers in research: a manual for investigative sites. University of Rochester Medical Center: CenterWatch, Inc.; 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    World Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Geneva. 1948. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-geneva/. Accessed 11 Oct 2016.
  11. 11.
    United Nations (UN). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. Accessed 11 Oct 2016.
  12. 12.
    World Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki—ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 1964. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.
  13. 13.
    World Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Office for Human Research Protections. 2016. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/. Accessed 18 Oct 2016.
  15. 15.
    •• International Society for Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE), Kramer S, Soskolne CL, Al-Delaimy WK, Mustapha BA. “Ethics guidelines for environmental epidemiologists” adopted on April 25, 2012. 2012. http://www.iseepi.org/About/Docs/ethics_guidelines_adopted_april_25_2012.pdf. Accessed 9 Oct 2016. The complete ISEE Guidelines for Environmental Epidemiology are available on the ISEE website.
  16. 16.
    Soskolne CL. Epidemiology: questions of science, ethics, morality, and law. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129(1):1–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Metcalf J. Ethics codes: history, context, and challenges. Council for Big Data, Ethics, and Society. 2014. http://bdes.datasociety.net/council-output/ethics-codes-history-context-and-challenges/. Accessed 12 Oct 2016.
  18. 18.
    The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. 1979. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html. Accessed 11 Oct 2016.
  19. 19.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical. Ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Human Research Protections. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45: Public Welfare, Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46). 2009. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html. Accessed 11 Oct 2016.
  21. 21.
    Beecher HK. Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1966;274(24):1354–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Human Research Protections. International compilation of human research standards: 2016 Edition. 2016. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/internationalcomp2016.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2016.
  23. 23.
    Soskolne CL. Epidemiological research, interest groups, and the review process. J Public Health Policy. 1985;6(2):173–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gordis L, Gold E, Seltser R. Privacy protection in epidemiologic and medical research: a challenge and a responsibility. Am J Epidemiol. 1977;105(3):163–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Susser M. Judgement and causal inference: criteria in epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1977;105(1):1–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Susser M, Stein Z, Kline J. Ethics in epidemiology. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci. 1978;437:128–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Soskolne CL, Zeighami EA. Research, interest groups, and the review process (Abstract #016). Paper presented at the 10th Scientific Meeting of the International Epidemiological Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 1984.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Soskolne CL. Should epidemiologists subscribe to a code of ethical conduct? (Abstract #68). Paper presented at the 11th Scientific Meeting of the International Epidemiological Association, Helsinki, Finland. 1987.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Industrial Epidemiology Forum’s Conference on Ethics in Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991; 44(Suppl 1):1S–169S.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    International Epidemiological Association (IEA). IEA Guidelines for proper conduct in epidemiologic research. 2007. http://ieaweb.org/good-epidemiological-practice-gep/. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.
  31. 31.
    American College of Epidemiology (ACE). Ethics guidelines. 2003. http://acepidemiology.org/sites/default/files/EthicsGuide.pdf Accessed 9 Oct 2016.
  32. 32.
    American College of Epidemiology (ACE). American College of Epidemiology Ethics Guidelines. Ann Epidemiol. 2000;10(8):487–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McKeown RE, Weed DL, Kahn JP, Stoto MA. American College of Epidemiology Ethics Guidelines: foundations and dissemination. Sci Eng Ethics. 2003;9:207–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Beauchamp TL, Cook RR, Fayerweather WE, Raabe GK, Thar WE, Cowles SR, et al. Ethical guidelines for epidemiologists. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(Suppl 1):151s–69s.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), in collaboration with the World Health Organization. International guidelines for ethical review of epidemiological studies. J Law Med Ethics. 1991;19(3–4):247–58.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Soskolne CL, Jhangri GS, Hunter B, Close M. Interim report on the Joint International Society for Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE)—Global Environmental Epidemiology Network (GEENET) ethics survey. Sci Total Environ. 1996;184(1,2):5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Soskolne CL. (ed.). Proceedings of the symposium on ethics and law in environmental epidemiology. J Expos Anal Environ Epidemiol Part II. 1993;3(Suppl 1):243–319.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    World Health Organization (WHO). WHO/ISEE international workshop on ethical and philosophical issues in environmental epidemiology—report on a WHO meeting. Sci Total Environ. 1996;184(1–2):131–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Soskolne CL, Sieswerda LE. Implementing ethics in the professions: examples from environmental epidemiology. Sci Eng Ethics. 2003;9(2):181–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Soskolne CL, Light A. Towards ethics guidelines for environmental epidemiologists. Sci Total Environ. 1996;184(1–2):137–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    International Society for Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE). Ethics guidelines for environmental epidemiologists. 1999. http://www.iseepi.org/About/Docs/ethicsguidelinesforenvironmentalepidemiologists.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
  42. 42.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International ethical guidelines for epidemiological studies. Geneva: CIOMS/WHO; 2009.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kramer S, Soskolne CL, Mustapha BA, Al-Delaimy WK. Revised ethics guidelines for environmental epidemiologists. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(8):a299–301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    International Statistical Institute (ISI). Declaration on professional ethics. 2010. https://www.isi-web.org/images/about/Declaration-EN2010.pdf. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.
  45. 45.
    Prineas RJ, Goodman K, Soskolne CL, Buck G, Feinleib M, Last J, et al. Findings from the American College of Epidemiology’s survey on ethics guidelines: the American College of Epidemiology Ethics and Standards of Practice Committee. Ann Epidemiol. 1998;8(8):482–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Richter E, Soskolne CL, LaDou J. Efforts to stop repression bias by protecting whistleblowers. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2001;7(1):68–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Coughlin SS. Ethics in epidemiology and public health practice. 2nd ed. Washington: American Public Health Association; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Coughlin SS. Ethics in epidemiology at the end of the 20th century: ethics, values, and mission statements. Epidemiol Rev. 2000;22(1):169–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Michaels D. Doubt is their product: how industry’s assault on science threatens your health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    • Friedman L, Friedman M. Financial conflicts of interest and study results in environmental and occupational health research. J Occup Environ Med. 2016;58(3):238–47. This study provides evidence of the tendency to report negative results in environmental epidemiological studies depending on the source of funding or sponsorship CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Capps B. Can a good tree bring forth evil fruit? The funding of medical research by industry. Br Med Bull. 2016;118(1):5–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wells EM. Evidence regarding the impact of conflicts of interest on environmental and occupational health research. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2017; in press Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Smith R. What is research misconduct? A background paper prepared for the Joint Consensus Conference on Misconduct in Biomedical Research. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 2000;30:4–8.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    • Nichols-Casebolt A, Macrina FL. Current perspectives regarding institutional conflict of interest : commentary on “Institutional conflicts of interest in academic research”. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015; doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9703-8. This Commentary addresses the risks to research integrity of iCOI, and the processes that may be implemented to manage them PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Benner M, Sandstrom U. Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system. Res Policy. 2000;29:291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Resnik DB, Ariansen JL, Jamal J, Kissling GE. Institutional conflict of interest policies at U.S. academic research institutions. Acad Med. 2016;91(2):242–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ehringhaus SH, Weissman JS, Sears JL, Goold SD, Feibelmann S, Campbell EG. Responses of medical schools to institutional conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2008;299:665–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Aaron DG, Siegel MB. Sponsorship of National Health Organizations by two major soda companies. Am J Prev Med. 2016; doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.08.010.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tallapragada M, Eosco GM, McComas KA. Aware, yet ignorant: exploring the views of early career researchers about funding and conflicts of interests in science. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016; doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9764-3.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Epidemiology International, Inc.Hunt ValleyUSA
  2. 2.Sterilex CorporationHunt ValleyUSA
  3. 3.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  4. 4.University of CanberraCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations