Research Ethics最新文献

{"title":"Awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward health research ethics and research ethics committees among healthcare postgraduate students, faculty, and professionals in The Gambia.","authors":"Thomas Senghore, Effua Usuf, Jainaba Sey-Sawo, Henry Silverman, Veronica P S Njie-Carr","doi":"10.1177/17470161261469646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161261469646","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Until recently, there has been no formal research ethics training program in The Gambia, despite decades of conducting research. This study aimed to evaluate the awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and practices of research ethics and Research ethics committees (RECs) among health professionals across various health cadres before the commencement of a postgraduate certificate program. A cross-sectional survey was conducted using an online questionnaire. Chi-square tests and multivariable binary logistic regression models were used to examine the associations between independent variables and knowledge, attitudes, and practices of research ethics and RECs. Among 147 participants, 42.1% were unaware of the availability of ethics training programs in The Gambia. Over two-thirds were aware of the research ethics principles (69.7%), the presence of RECs in their institutions (61.2%), and their functions (61.8%). About half (47.9%) demonstrated adequate knowledge of research ethics, while 45.8% and 44.4% had a positive attitude toward research ethics and RECs, respectively. Alarmingly, 85.5% exhibited low levels of research ethics practice. Having an undergraduate degree or higher showed statistically significant odds of a positive attitude toward research ethics compared to holding a college diploma or lower (aOR 2.98; 95% CI: 1.09-8.18, <i>p</i> = 0.034). The low level of practice and average knowledge and attitude of the participants toward research ethics and RECs is likely a reflection of the lack of formal research ethics training programs. Greater awareness and local training opportunities are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2026-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13600761/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149040662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rethinking ethical reflexivity and oversight in health research through an ecosystem approach: A workshop report.","authors":"Katharine Wright, Joseph Ali, Caesar Atuire, Phaik Yeong Cheah, Anna Chiumento, Agata Ferretti, Adrienne Hunt, Sharon Kaur, Rachel L Knowles, Carleigh B Krubiner, Florencia Luna, Paul Ndebele, Ana Palmero, James Shaw, Effy Vayena, Teck Chuan Voo, Jantina de Vries, Katherine Littler","doi":"10.1177/17470161251346253","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161251346253","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As the scope of morally relevant considerations widens and new challenges emerge at the frontiers of health innovation, there are questions about the appropriate role and remit for research ethics review, within the broader context of the whole health research ecosystem. Drawing on discussion at a satellite meeting at the 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research in Cape Town, we argue that the ethical conduct of research is the responsibility of <i>all</i> stakeholders in the research ecosystem - from funders, governments and research institutions to individual research teams and ethics committees. As a research community we need to espouse, and take action to achieve, more distributed approaches to ethical scrutiny and reflexivity. A crucial element of such a shift should be the development of collaborative and non-adversarial relationships between researchers and ethics committees that recognise and respect the mutual responsibilities of all parties to promote ethical research conduct. In tandem with the development of systems to support the exercise of ethical responsibilities across the research ecosystem, committees need to reconceptualise their role, in partnership with communities, as one of providing accountability through a focus on how research promotes participant agency and the common good.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"168-183"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13367892/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148449786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Augmenting research consent: should large language models (LLMs) be used for informed consent to clinical research?","authors":"Jemima W Allen, Owen Schaefer, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Brian D Earp, Dominic Wilkinson","doi":"10.1177/17470161241298726","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161241298726","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI's ChatGPT, into clinical research could significantly enhance the informed consent process. This paper critically examines the ethical implications of employing LLMs to facilitate consent in clinical research. LLMs could offer considerable benefits, such as improving participant understanding and engagement, broadening participants' access to the relevant information for informed consent and increasing the efficiency of consent procedures. However, these theoretical advantages are accompanied by ethical risks, including the potential for misinformation, coercion and challenges in accountability. Given the complex nature of consent in clinical research, which involves both written documentation (in the form of participant information sheets and informed consent forms) and in-person conversations with a researcher, the use of LLMs raises significant concerns about the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) will need to consider substantial reforms to accommodate the integration of LLM-based consent processes. We explore five potential models for LLM implementation, ranging from supplementary roles to complete replacements of current consent processes, and offer recommendations for researchers and IRBs to navigate the ethical landscape. Thus, we aim to provide practical recommendations to facilitate the ethical introduction of LLM-based consent in research settings by considering factors such as participant understanding, information accuracy, human oversight and types of LLM applications in clinical research consent.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"21 4","pages":"644-670"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7618319/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145446176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Pragmatic and ethical challenges in navigating inauthentic participation in remote qualitative research.","authors":"Katelin Hoskins, Kelly Sebetka, Arielle Thomas, Joseph Simonetti, Johnny Williams, Gabriela Khazanov","doi":"10.1177/17470161251316286","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161251316286","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Restrictions put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift towards remote qualitative recruitment and data collection. This shift generated considerable opportunities to conduct qualitative research, but also introduced novel challenges to data integrity in the form of inauthentic participants. While newer literature describes potential strategies that may be deployed to target concerns related to inauthentic participation, an explicit focus on equity and ethical considerations has been largely absent from current discourse. Here we describe our experiences and challenges conducting a study aimed at exploring reasons for recent firearm acquisition among Black Americans. We describe the mitigation strategies we implemented, as well as the ethical challenges and potential consequences that emerged. Our team identified three specific ethical considerations: <i>identity and processes of categorization</i>, <i>trust and mistrust in research engagement</i>, and <i>privacy and honoring sensitive context.</i> These considerations are critical to consider in conducting qualitative research, especially among marginalized groups, and expand the current literature on qualitative research ethics.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"21 4","pages":"671-688"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12530118/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145330374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"<i>\"Should researchers return individual pharmacogenomics results to participants?</i>\" A descriptive qualitative study on stakeholder perspectives involved in HIV/AIDS research and treatment in Uganda.","authors":"Sylvia Nabukenya, David Kyaddondo, Adelline Twimukye, Catriona Waitt, Erisa S Mwaka","doi":"10.1177/17470161251367780","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161251367780","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The return of individual pharmacogenomic research results is increasingly recognized as an ethical obligation, reflecting participants' right to information and researchers' duty of care. However, implementing this in low-resource settings poses significant ethical and logistical challenges. We explored stakeholders' attitudes and challenges to the process of returning individual pharmacogenomics research results in Uganda. Between September 2021 and February 2022, we conducted 54 qualitative interviews. These included five focus group discussions with 30 community representatives across five HIV research institutions, 12 key informant interviews with researchers, and 12 in-depth interviews with ethics committee members. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results. Four themes emerged from this data. These included (i) attitudes towards returning individual pharmacogenomics results to people living with HIV; (ii) social and ethical implications of returning results; (iii) perceived challenges to the return of results; and (iv) proposed recommendations to overcome the challenges. Returning results reflects principles of reciprocity and equity, and is a source of hope to many people living with chronic illnesses. However, stakeholders raised challenges, including low literacy levels and absence of direct translation of genetic terms, which may lead to misinterpretation of the results; depression and anxiety; stigma and discrimination that could result from breach of confidentiality and privacy. Stakeholders highlighted the need to sensitize the public about the role of genes in an individual's body. Returning pharmacogenomic results to vulnerable populations is ethically important, but must be approached with caution due to implications that may extend beyond the individual. Stakeholders emphasized the need for national guidelines and institutional standard operating procedures to ensure results are communicated safely and sensitively.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13045750/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147623968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"\"It <i>just feels morally not right</i> to Sell the data\": Ethical and social perspectives on human genomic data sharing in Uganda-A phenomenological qualitative study.","authors":"Deborah Ekusai-Sebatta, David Kyaddondo, David Kaawa-Mafigiri, John Barugahare, Jimmy Spire Ssentongo, Shenuka Singh, Erisa Mwaka","doi":"10.1177/17470161251361575","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161251361575","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While genomic data sharing enhances transparency and research efficiency, it also raises significant ethical and social challenges. This study explored stakeholders' perspectives on these issues, particularly around privacy, confidentiality, and equity in collaborative research. A phenomenological qualitative study was conducted between August and December 2023 at Makerere University College of Health Sciences, other research-intensive institutions, and national regulatory bodies. The study engaged 86 participants: 47 key informants (16 researchers, 14 ethics committee members, nine community advisory board members, and eight research regulators) and four deliberative focus group discussions with 39 participants. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 14. Three major themes emerged: (1) stakeholders' experiences in genomic research, including their roles as participants, implementers, or overseers; (2) ethical concerns, such as informed consent, third-party data access, inequities between high-income and low- and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers and participants, and the lack of benefit-sharing frameworks; and (3) social implications, including stigma, discrimination, labeling, community perceptions of fairness, and the need for meaningful engagement. Participants emphasized the importance of protecting participant rights, promoting equity, and ensuring robust data governance and security. The theoretical frameworks of principlism and distributive justice provided a valuable lens for examining these concerns, particularly by highlighting the need to safeguard privacy and fairly distribute responsibilities and benefits in global collaborations. Participants also noted that perceptions of fairness are shaped by trust, local context, and past experiences with research factors that are critical for building equitable and respectful partnerships. This study underscores the urgent need to strengthen protections for research participants and promote fairness in genomic data sharing. Policies should, if adopted, emphasize culturally contextualized consent, active community engagement, restricted third-party data access, and strong data protection mechanisms to address existing inequities and prevent misuse.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435449/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145076182","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How community members in Uganda perceive controlled human infection studies.","authors":"Winfred Nazziwa, Stella Neema, Alison Elliot, Samson B Kaboko, Julius Ecuru, Erisa Mwaka","doi":"10.1177/17470161251355985","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161251355985","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Controlled Human Infection studies are a new and uncommon way of conducting clinical research in low resource settings. Regardless of the supposed importance of human infection studies in advancing clinical research, there is still limited literature on community perceptions of this field of research, particularly in low-resource settings. An exploratory qualitative study involving 107 community members organized into 16 focussed groups was conducted in Kampala city and Buikwe district in central Uganda between September 2023 and March 2024. The groups comprised market vendors, secondary school teachers, university students, media professionals/journalists, mosques/church attendants and Community Advisory Board members. Data were analysed using a systematic inductive analysis approach. While community members across all deliberative focus group discussions acknowledged the potential of human infection studies to accelerate the development of therapeutics for infectious diseases that disproportionately affect low-income countries, the majority viewed deliberate infection method as difficult to accept at the moment. Several would not be willing to participate in controlled human infection study due to the perceived fear of death and associated long term consequences, infrastructural challenges, mistrust of scientists, cultural and religious beliefs. Deliberate effective engagement with the community may enhance community acceptability of controlled human infection studies. Such engagement should use contextually appropriate messages to create awareness and augment acceptability of the human infection method in low resource settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13155458/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147869853","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Understanding and processing informed consent during data-intensive health research in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and opportunities from a multilingual perspective.","authors":"Lillian Omutoko, George Rugare Chingarande, Marietjie Botes, Farayi Moyana, Shenuka Singh, Walter Jaoko, Esperança Sevene, Tiwonge K Mtande, Ama Kyerewaa Edwin, Limbanazo Matandika, Theresa Burgess, Keymanthri Moodley","doi":"10.1177/17470161241274809","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161241274809","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Africa has a colonial past that renders it a linguistic melting pot, where language is not only important for communication but is inextricably related to cultural identity. In Africa, there are over 2000 languages that are still being used and spoken. Language diversity coupled with cultural diversity may affect the process of obtaining informed consent in data-intensive research. We explore some of the challenges and opportunities of multilingualism in handling informed consent in the context of data-intensive research. In multilingual contexts, as in most African countries, language is exceptionally central, and translation has potential cultural, social, historical, functional and scientific importance. However, it is recognised that terminological and translation activities may not always be cost-effective or feasible. We consider alternative mechanisms of harmonisation of data-related terminology and concepts in multilingual contexts, such as iconography, graphic elicitation and other multimedia formats of information sharing. The inclusion of visual or multimedia explanations in informed consent forms can improve comprehension, enhance information transfer and learning, reduce potential vulnerabilities associated with low literacy levels or the inability to interpret technical language associated with data-intensive research, build trust with participants and their communities, and promote autonomy of potential participants. We recognise that the inclusion of visual or multimedia content to facilitate information transfer is only one component of the informed consent process for data-intensive research. Research ethics committees (RECs) should be mindful of other key considerations and challenges of informed consent for data-intensive research in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and to explore whether these alternative forms of consent are ethical and effective in multilingual contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"21 3","pages":"503-518"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12346138/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144849289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The responsible conduct of police participatory research: A qualitative study of officers' ethical beliefs.","authors":"Brandon Del Pozo, Lauren Magee, Alina Whiteside, Erin Thompson, Kaitlin Martins","doi":"10.1177/17470161251349607","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161251349607","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The responsible conduct of research must be sensitive to the unique ethical concerns of the police setting, but we have yet to develop an empirical understanding of the ethics of research involving police officers as participants. To develop such an understanding, this study collected qualitative data from 30 officers serving in eight agencies throughout the United States. The interviews situated their ethical sensibilities about research in relation to the Belmont principles that serve as the dominant source of norms in U.S. research ethics, then evoked reactions about consent, compensation, confidentiality, and researchers' motives. The interviews focused on a) how police officers characterize the responsible conduct of research; b) the extent to which their reasoning tracks established ethical principles, and c) which elements of these principles they emphasize. The study also probed which actors and factors were likely to best protect the ethical interests of police as research participants, and how they could be operationalized in a police research setting. Officers stressed the role of the police sergeant as their ethical fiduciary in the planning and execution of research, the distinction between being neutral versus impartial in research, the acceptability of withholding research questions and hypotheses to ensure candid and forthcoming responses, and, generally, the importance of a form of procedural justice in the conduct of research in police settings. The findings provide recommendations for police participatory research that would empower investigators to interpret and navigate the attendant ethical concerns in the context of their own research tradition, encouraging more frequent and higher quality participation in research among police agencies and their officers.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12382591/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144972846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Disclosing generative AI use for writing assistance should be voluntary.","authors":"Mohammad Hosseini, Bert Gordijn, Gregory E Kaebnick, Kristi Holmes","doi":"10.1177/17470161251345499","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161251345499","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Researchers have been using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to support writing manuscripts for several years now. However, as GenAI evolves and scientists are using it more frequently, the case for mandatory disclosure of GenAI for writing assistance continues to diverge from the initial justifications for disclosure, namely (1) preventing researchers from taking credit for work done by machines; (2) enabling other researchers to critically evaluate a manuscript and its specific claims; and (3) helping editors determine if a submission satisfies their editorial policies. Our initial position (communicated through previous publications) regarding GenAI use for writing assistance was in favor of mandatory disclosure. Nevertheless, as we show in this paper, we have changed our position and now support instituting a voluntary disclosure policy because currently (1) the credit due to machines for assisting researchers is moving below the threshold of requiring recognition; (2) it is impractical (if not impossible) to accurately specify what parts of the text are human-/GenAI-generated; and (3) disclosures could increase biases against non-native speakers of the English language and compromise the integrity of the peer review system. Consequently, we argue, it should be up to the authors of manuscripts to disclose their use of GenAI for writing assistance. For example, in disciplines where writing is the hallmark of originality, or when authors believe disclosure is beneficial, a voluntary checkbox in manuscript submission systems, visible only after publication (rather than a free-text note in the manuscripts) would be preferable.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12425484/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145065892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}