Scientific Response to Deadly Novel Epidemics: The Role of Health Research Ethics

2019 ◽  
pp. 215-228
Author(s):  
Francis K. Kombe ◽  
Jennyfer Ambe ◽  
Gibril Ndow
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Research

scholarly journals Ethical research in global health emergencies: making the case for a broader understanding of ‘research ethics’

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 515-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine S Wright
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Core Values ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Ethical Reflection ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Equal Respect

Abstract The ethical challenges of global health research become particularly acute in emergency contexts, and are exacerbated by historic inequities and imbalances in power and influence. Drawing on the findings of an international working group established by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, this article argues for the need to take a broader approach to ‘research ethics’ as traditionally understood, to include the role of ‘duty-bearers’ such as funders, governments, research institutions and journals. An ‘ethical compass’ of three core values (equal respect, fairness and helping reduce suffering) supports ethical reflection at the level of policy, as well as on the ground.

Role of E-Learning in Teaching Health Research Ethics and Good Clinical Practice in Africa and Beyond

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-119
Author(s):  
R. CHILENGI ◽  
A. NYIKA ◽  
G. B. TANGWA ◽  
R. A. NOOR ◽  
S. W. RAMADHANI ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
E Learning

International Health Research Ethics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Research ◽  
International Research ◽  
International Health ◽  
Middle Income Country ◽  
Income Country ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Health research funded by organizations from HICs and conducted in low- and middle-income countries has grown significantly since 1990. Power imbalances and inequities frequently (but not always) exist at each stage of the international research process. Unsurprisingly then, a variety of ethical concerns commonly arise in the context of international health research, such as inequities in funding, the semi-colonial nature of international research models, the brain drain of low- and middle-income country researchers, and inequities in partnerships between HIC and low- and middle-income country researchers. In this chapter, these (and other) ethical concerns are introduced and the following ethical concepts to address the concerns are then discussed: responsiveness, standard of care, benefit sharing, community engagement, and social value. Existing guidance and remaining debates about how to specify each of the concepts are summarized. The chapter concludes by highlighting the existence of epistemic injustices within the field of international research ethics.

Health research capacity in Nepal: Analysis of the trend and the role of local researchers

2021 ◽  
pp. 004947552098277
Author(s):  
Madhu Kharel ◽  
Alpha Pokharel ◽  
Krishna P Sapkota ◽  
Prasant V Shahi ◽  
Pratisha Shakya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Evidence-based decision-making is less common in low- and middle-income countries where the research capacity remains low. Nepal, a lower-middle-income country in Asia, is not an exception. We conducted a rapid review to identify the trend of health research in Nepal and found more than seven-fold increase in the number of published health-related articles between 2000 and 2018. The proportion of articles with Nepalese researchers as the first authors has also risen over the years, though they are still only in two-thirds of the articles in 2018.

scholarly journals Philosophers in research ethics committees—what do they think they’re doing? An empirical-ethical analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Gauckler
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Applied Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Philosophical Perspective ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Practical Level

AbstractResearch ethics committees in Germany usually don’t have philosophers as members and if so, only contingently, not provided for by statute. This is interesting from a philosophical perspective, assuming that ethics is a discipline of philosophy. It prompts the question what role philosophers play in those committees they can be found in. Eight qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the self-perception of philosophers regarding their contribution to research ethics committees. The results show that the participants generally don’t view themselves as ethics experts. They are rather unanimous on the competencies they think they contribute to the committee but not as to whether those are philosophical competencies or applied ethical ones. In some cases they don’t see a big difference between their role and the role of the jurist member. In the discussion section of this paper I bring up three topics, prompted by the interviews, that need to be addressed: (1) I argue that the interviewees’ unwillingness to call themselves ethics experts might have to do with a too narrow understanding of ethics expertise. (2) I argue that the disagreement among the interviewees concerning the relationship between moral philosophy and applied ethics might be explained on a theoretical or on a practical level. (3) I argue that there is some lack of clarity concerning the relationship between ethics and law in research ethics committees and that further work needs to be done here. All three topics, I conclude, need further investigation.

scholarly journals The state of health research governance in Africa: what do we know and how can we improve?

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliet Nabyonga-Orem ◽  
James Avoka Asamani ◽  
Micheal Makanga
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Focal Point ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Dual Role ◽  
Research Governance ◽  
World Health ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Scientific Review

Abstract Background The developments in global health, digital technology, and persistent health systems challenges, coupled with global commitments like attainment of universal health coverage, have elevated the role of health research in low- and middle-income countries. However, there is a need to strengthen health research governance and create a conducive environment that can promote ethics and research integrity and increase public trust in research. Objective To assess whether the necessary structures are in place to ensure health research governance. Methods Employing a cross-sectional survey, we collected data on research governance components from 35 Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region. Data were analysed using basic descriptive and comparative analysis. Results Eighteen out of 35 countries had legislation to regulate the conduct of health research, while this was lacking in 12 countries. Some legislation was either grossly outdated or too limiting in scope, while some countries had multiple laws. Health research policies and strategies were in place in 16 and 15 countries, respectively, while research priority lists were available in 25 countries. Overlapping mandates of institutions responsible for health research partly explained the lack of strategic documents in some countries. The majority of countries had ethical committees performing a dual role of ethical and scientific review. Research partnership frameworks were available to varying degrees to govern both in-country and north–south research collaboration. Twenty-five countries had a focal point and unit within the ministries of health (MoH) to coordinate research. Conclusion Governance structures must be adaptive to embrace new developments in science. Further, strong coordination is key to ensuring comprehensiveness and complementarity in both research development and generation of evidence. The majority of committees perform a dual role of ethics and scientific review, and these need to ensure representation of relevant expertise. Opportunities that accrue from collaborative research need to be seized through strong MoH leadership and clear partnership frameworks that guide negotiations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document