Informed consent in field trials of gene-drive mosquitoes [version 1; referees: 4 approved]

The US National Academies’ (NAS) recent report ‘Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values’ examines the requirements of responsible conduct in research involving gene drives in non-human organisms. Many of the complex ethical issues raised by the introduction of gene drive technologies for mosquito population control have been anticipated during the development and field-testing of earlier-generation genetic engineering approaches with mosquitoes. One issue—the requirement for informed consent in field trials—is not addressed explicitly in the NAS’ report. Some commentators have presumed that informed consent should play a role as a protection for research participants in studies of genetically modified mosquitoes. Others have argued that there are no human subjects of field trials, so the informed consent requirement does not apply. It is both ethically and practically important that these presumptions are adequately scrutinized to ensure that any applications of informed consent in these trials are properly justified. We argue that informed consent from individual research participants in gene drive trials may be required: (1) when blood and other forms of clinical data are collected from them, as will likely be the case in some studies involving epidemiological endpoints, such as the incidence of new infections with dengue and malaria; (2) when they participate in social science and/or behavioral research involving the completion of surveys and questionnaires; or (3) when their home or property is accessed and the location recorded as a spatial variable for the release or collection of mosquitoes because the precise location of the household is important for entomological reasons and these data constitute identifiable private information at the household level. Importantly, most regulations and guidelines allow these requirements to be waived or modified, to various degrees, according to the judgment of Institutional Review Boards

Community engagement and the human infrastructure of global health research

Abstract Background Biomedical research is increasingly globalized with ever more research conducted in low and middle-income countries. This trend raises a host of ethical concerns and critiques. While community engagement (CE) has been proposed as an ethically important practice for global biomedical research, there is no agreement about what these practices contribute to the ethics of research, or when they are needed. Discussion In this paper, we propose an ethical framework for CE. The framework is grounded in the insight that relationships between the researcher and the community extend beyond the normal bounds of the researcher-research participant encounter and are the foundation of meaningful engagement. These relationships create an essential “human infrastructure” – a web of relationships between researchers and the stakeholder community—i.e., the diverse stakeholders who have interests in the conduct and/or outcomes of the research. Through these relationships, researchers are able to address three core ethical responsibilities: (1) identifying and managing non-obvious risks and benefits; (2) expanding respect beyond the individual to the stakeholder community; and (3) building legitimacy for the research project. Summary By recognizing the social and political context of biomedical research, CE offers a promising solution to many seemingly intractable challenges in global health research; however there are increasing concerns about what makes engagement meaningful. We have responded to those concerns by presenting an ethical framework for CE. This framework reflects our belief that the value of CE is realized through relationships between researchers and stakeholders, thereby advancing three distinct ethical goals. Clarity about the aims of researcher-stakeholder relationships helps to make engagement programs more meaningful, and contributes to greater clarity about when CE should be recommended or required

Demonstrations of leadership by PI and senior program management.

<p>Demonstrations of leadership by PI and senior program management.</p

Core commitments and guiding values.

<p>Core commitments and guiding values.</p