a review of empirical data and ethical analysis

Background Appropriate information and consent has been one of the most intensely discussed topics within the context of biobank research. In parallel to the normative debate, many socio-empirical studies have been conducted to gather experiences, preferences and views of patients, healthy research participants and further stakeholders. However, there is scarcity of literature which connects the normative debate about justifications for different consent models with findings gained in empirical research. In this paper we discuss findings of a limited review of socio-empirical research on patients’ and healthy research participants’ experiences and views regarding consent to biobank research in light of ethical principles for appropriate information and consent. Methods Review question: Which empirical data are available on research participants’ perceptions and views regarding information and elicitation of consent for biobank research? Search of articles published till March 1st 2014 in Pubmed. Review of abstracts and potentially relevant full text articles by two authors independently. As categories for content analysis we defined (i) understanding or recall of information, (ii) preferences regarding information or consent, and (iii) research participants’ concerns. Results The search in Pubmed yielded 337 abstracts of which 10 articles were included in this study. Approaches to information and consent varied considerably across the selected studies. The majority of research participants opted for some version of limited consent when being informed about such possibility. Among the factors influencing the type of preferred consent were information about sponsoring of biobank research by pharmaceutical industry and participants’ trade-off between privacy and perceived utility. Studies investigating research participants’ understanding and recall regarding the consent procedure indicated considerable lack of both aspects. Research participants’ perceptions of benefits and harms differ across those studies. Conclusion The knowledge, perceptions and views of research participants who have undergone a consent procedure within the context of biobank research raise several questions on the issue of how to inform and elicit consent in an ethically acceptable way. In our empirical-ethical analysis we develop suggestions on how the practice of eliciting consent in the biobank context should be improved

Targeted drugs and Psycho-oncological intervention for breast cancer patients

Personalized medicine is a new field based on molecular biology and genomics in which targeted tumor therapies are administered to patients. Psycho- oncology is a complementary approach that considers social and psychological aspects of patients as part of the treatments for cancer patients. The aim of this mini-review is to weigh clinical benefits for breast cancer patients of both treatments and possibily enhance benefits by modulating the use of both interventions. We have compared and evaluated on the one hand the use of anti Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and, on the other hand, psycho-oncological interventions in metastatic and non-metastatic breast cancer patients. Both treatments did not increase survival of metastatic breast cancer patients, while in a selected study psycho-oncological interventions extended lifespan of non-metastatic breast cancer patients and ameliorate psychological and social factors of metastatic breast cancer patients. Because the two approaches address completely different aspects of cancer patients, if the comparison is limited to the extension of survival, the value of these two treatments cannot be assessed and compared. It is likely that by comparing patients reported outcomes, possibly by using standardized Quality of Life questionnaires, both patients and health care providers can weigh the benefits of the two treatments. It is therefore important to evaluate the use of cancer patients’ quality of life measures as a mean to improve their experiences about life and treatment, and possibly to extend their survival

“Political Epistemology of Epidemic Management”

International audienceToday, claims about the contiguity of health management and societal organization bring biopolitical concerns to the forefront. This essay offers historical-political insights on the covid-19 pandemic, which are particularly urgent, as both the temporal and the cultural-political dimensions have been insufficiently considered in current debates. After introducing our specific political-epistemological approach, we delve into the entanglements of medical expertise, economic interests, surveillance politics, and diplomatic relations in the past in order to shed light on the present. Additionally, we address the limitations of Italian theory’s biopolitica, namely its idle radicalization of critical views on medical politics inspired by French épistémologie historique. We conclude with a call to scientists’ responsibility in consideration of the societal embedment of their activity. Yet, the task of an emancipated science is not only in their hands but depends on our collective capacity to organically connect their work to the renewal of the body politics at large

Research participants’ perceptions and views on consent for biobank research

$\bf Background:$ Appropriate information and consent has been one of the most intensely discussed topics within the context of biobank research. In parallel to the normative debate, many socio-empirical studies have been conducted to gather experiences, preferences and views of patients, healthy research participants and further stakeholders. However, there is scarcity of literature which connects the normative debate about justifications for different consent models with findings gained in empirical research. In this paper we discuss findings of a limited review of socio-empirical research on patients’ and healthy research participants’ experiences and views regarding consent to biobank research in light of ethical principles for appropriate information and consent. $\bf Methods:$ Review question: Which empirical data are available on research participants’ perceptions and views regarding information and elicitation of consent for biobank research? Search of articles published till March 1st 2014 in Pubmed. Review of abstracts and potentially relevant full text articles by two authors independently. As categories for content analysis we defined (i) understanding or recall of information, (ii) preferences regarding information or consent, and (iii) research participants’ concerns. $\bf Results:$ The search in Pubmed yielded 337 abstracts of which 10 articles were included in this study. Approaches to information and consent varied considerably across the selected studies. The majority of research participants opted for some version of limited consent when being informed about such possibility. Among the factors influencing the type of preferred consent were information about sponsoring of biobank research by pharmaceutical industry and participants’ trade-off between privacy and perceived utility. Studies investigating research participants’ understanding and recall regarding the consent procedure indicated considerable lack of both aspects. Research participants’ perceptions of benefits and harms differ across those studies. $\bf Conclusion:$ The knowledge, perceptions and views of research participants who have undergone a consent procedure within the context of biobank research raise several questions on the issue of how to inform and elicit consent in an ethically acceptable way. In our empirical-ethical analysis we develop suggestions on how the practice of eliciting consent in the biobank context should be improved

The bench is closer to the bedside than we think : Uncovering the ethical ties between preclinical researchers in translational neuroscience and patients in clinical trials

Millions of people worldwide currently suffer from serious neurological diseases and injuries for which there are few, and often no, effective treatments. The paucity of effective interventions is, no doubt, due in large part to the complexity of the disorders, as well as our currently limited understanding of their pathophysiology. The bleak picture for patients, however, is also attributable to avoidable impediments stemming from quality concerns in preclinical research that often escape detection by research regulation efforts. In our essay, we connect the dots between these concerns about the quality of preclinical research and their potential ethical impact on the patients who volunteer for early trials of interventions informed by it. We do so in hopes that a greater appreciation among preclinical researchers of these serious ethical consequences can lead to a greater commitment within the research community to adopt widely available tools and measures that can help to improve the quality of research