Seeking Approval from Universities to Research the Views of Their Staff. Do Gatekeepers Provide a Barrier to Ethical Research?

A “gatekeeper” controls access to an organization; “gatekeeper approval” is often needed before external research can take place within an organization. We explore the need for gatekeeper approval for research with university staff employing, as a case study, a project which collected data in Australia. This case study addresses known issues, seemingly rarely addressed in the literature. The Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC)'s requirement for approval from individual universities to approach their staff brought significant consequences, exacerbated by the lack of university procedures for such approvals. Simultaneously, since invitations could legitimately be distributed via other avenues, such approval was superfluous. We recommend the HREC's blanket requirement for institutional approval instead be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the risk of the research, and perhaps waived for low-risk research where participants are able to provide informed consent, and that universities establish processes to deal with requests from external researchers.

Combatting neo-Colonialism in Health Research: What can Aboriginal Health Research Ethics and Global Health Research Ethics Teach Each Other?

The ethics of research involving Aboriginal populations and low and middle-income country populations each developed out of a long history of exploitative research projects and partnerships. Commonalities and differences between the two fields have not yet been examined. This study undertook two independent literature searches for Aboriginal health research ethics and global health research ethics. Content analysis identified shared and differently emphasised ethical principles and concepts between the two fields. Shared ethical concepts like “benefit” and “capacity development” have been developed to guide collaborations in both Aboriginal health research and global health research. However, Aboriginal health research ethics gives much greater prominence to ethical principles that assist in decolonising research practice such as “self-determination”, “community-control”, and “community ownership”. The paper argues that global health research ethics would benefit from giving greater emphasis to these principles to guide research practice, while justice as approached in global health research ethics may inform Aboriginal health research practice. With increasing attention being drawn to the need to decolonise global health research, the lessons Aboriginal health research ethics can offer may be especially timely.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Returning Nonactionable Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) Genetic Results to African American Research Participants

The ethics of returning nonactionable genetic research results to individuals are unclear. Apolipoprotein L1 ( APOL1) genetic variants are nonactionable, predominantly found in people of West African ancestry, and contribute to kidney disease disparities. To inform ethical research practice, we interviewed researchers, clinicians, and African American community members ( n = 76) about the potential risks and benefits of returning APOL1 research results. Stakeholders strongly supported returning APOL1 results. Benefits include reciprocity for participants, community education and rebuilding trust in research, and expectation of future actionability. Risks include analytic validity, misunderstanding, psychological burdens, stigma and discrimination, and questionable resource tradeoffs. Conclusions: APOL1 results should be offered to participants. Responsibly fulfilling this offer requires careful identification of best communication practices, broader education about the topic, and ongoing community engagement.

Stakeholders’ Perspectives regarding Participation in Neuromodulation-Based Dementia Intervention Research

This study evaluated stakeholders’ perspectives regarding participation in two hypothetical neuromodulation trials focused on individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (ADRDs). Stakeholders (i.e., individuals at risk for ADRDs [ n = 56], individuals with experience as a caregiver for someone with a cognitive disorder [ n = 60], and comparison respondents [ n = 124]) were recruited via MTurk. Primary outcomes were willingness to enroll (or enroll one's loved one), feeling lucky to have the opportunity to enroll, and feeling obligated to enroll in two protocols (transcranial magnetic stimulation, TMS; deep brain stimulation, DBS). Relative to the Comparison group, the At Risk group endorsed higher levels of “feeling lucky” regarding both research protocols, and higher willingness to participate in the TMS protocol. These findings provide tentative reassurance regarding the nature of decision making regarding neurotechnology-based research on ADRDs. Further work is needed to evaluate the full range of potential influences on research participation.

Perceptions of HIV Research Participation Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men who Have Sex with Men and Transgender and Nonbinary Adults: Results From a Midwest Pride Event

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) continues to disproportionately affect gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) and transgender and nonbinary (trans/NB) individuals. This study investigated attitudes toward participation in HIV survey research, guided by Emanuel's framework for ethical clinical research (e.g., risk–benefit ratio, fair participant selection, respect for participants, social value, and collaborative partnership). GBM ( n = 294) and trans/NB ( n = 86) persons recruited at a Pride event in Milwaukee completed a survey assessing risks and benefits of participation in, and comfort responding to, sexual health surveys. Participants reported few ethical concerns (e.g., privacy and confidentiality), with notable differences by race, sexual orientation and gender identity, and prior research experiences. Implications for HIV research with GBM and trans/NB individuals are discussed.

A Survey to Determine the Capacity Development Needs of Research Ethics Committee Administrators in South Africa

Most capacity development efforts for research ethics committees focus on committee members and little on ethics administrators. Increasing studies mandate the focus on administrators’ capacity development needs to enable adequate and effective committee support. This study investigated current responsibilities, training requirements, and administrator role needs. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among administrators from 62 National Health Research Ethics Council-registered research ethics committees in South Africa. In total, 36 administrators completed the questionnaire. Results show that, in addition to administration, they perform managerial, review process and guidance-advisory tasks. Nearly 49% indicated only having received informal research ethics-related training, not targeted formal training, with 81% of the informal training being through workshops. Research ethics administrators’ responsibilities have evolved to complex tasks requiring targeted capacity development efforts.

An Overview of King Hussein Cancer Center Institutional Review Board Over 12 Years (2009–2020), Successes and Challenges, Including Those Imposed by the COVID-19 Pandemic

The problem: Running an efficient institutional review board (IRB) can be challenging. The research subjects: To ensure an efficient committee, our IRB adopted several operational metrics. Methods: Analysis of retrospective data from the IRB records, database, and annual reports over 12 years. Results: The IRB roster comprises 11 members. The average medical to nonmedical member ratio is 5:6, and the male to female ratio is 4:7, which has not been consistent over the years. One thousand three hundred and twenty-four proposals were reviewed including 1077 exempt (81.3%), 126 expedited (9.5%), and 121 full board (9.2%) with a median turnaround time to approval of 4.0, 35.0, and 68.0 days, respectively. Training of the IRB members was conducted to enhance their knowledge and skills. IRB at King Hussein Cancer Center has managed to stay abreast and efficient during the COVID-19 pandemic, by working remotely. Conclusion: Running an efficient IRB mandates implementing a number of operational metrics.

Biobank Participants’ Attitudes Toward Data Sharing and Privacy: The Role of Trust in Reducing Perceived Risks

Biobank participants are often unaware of possible uses of their genetic and health information, despite explicit descriptions of those uses in consent forms. To explore why this misunderstanding persists, we conducted semi-structured interviews and knowledge tests with 22 participants who had recently enrolled in a research biobank. Results indicated that participants lacked understanding of privacy and data-sharing topics but were mostly unconcerned about associated risks. Participants described their answers on the knowledge test as largely driven by their trust in the healthcare system, not by a close reading of the information presented to them. This finding may help explain the difficulties in increasing participant understanding of privacy-related topics, even when such information is clearly presented in biobank consent forms.

Social Researchers’ Approaches to Research Ethics During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Study

The global COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine/distancing measures have forced researchers to cope with a new situation. This paper aimed to analyze how the pandemic and its associated constraints have affected social researchers’ approach to research ethics. Drawing on an online qualitative survey with 193 Polish social researchers conducted in April and May 2020, we distinguished three approaches: nothing has changed, opportunity-oriented, and precautionary. According to the first, the pandemic was not regarded as a situation that required additional reflection on ethical issues or changes in research approaches. By contrast, the other two were based on the assumption that the pandemic affected research project ethics. The difference was in the assessment of changes in the area of ethics. The pandemic presented an opportunity and a threat to the ethicality of research, respectively. We discuss the implications of all three approaches for research and education.

The Challenges of Big Data for Research Ethics Committees: A Qualitative Swiss Study

Big data trends in health research challenge the oversight mechanism of the Research Ethics Committees (RECs). The traditional standards of research quality and the mandate of RECs illuminate deficits in facing the computational complexity, methodological novelty, and limited auditability of these approaches. To better understand the challenges facing RECs, we explored the perspectives and attitudes of the members of the seven Swiss Cantonal RECs via semi-structured qualitative interviews. Our interviews reveal limited experience among REC members with the review of big data research, insufficient expertise in data science, and uncertainty about how to mitigate big data research risks. Nonetheless, RECs could strengthen their oversight by training in data science and big data ethics, complementing their role with external experts and ad hoc boards, and introducing precise shared practices.