|
 |
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Electronic Letters to:
|
|
eLetters: Electronic letters published:
-
![[Read eLetter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Ethical Review, IRBs and Collaborative Research: Experiences and attitudes.
- Adnan A. Hyder, Salman A. Wali (17 September 2002)
|
|
|||
|
Adnan A. Hyder, Assistant Professor Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Balitmore, MD, Salman A. Wali
Send letter to journal:
ahyder{at}jhsph.edu Adnan A. Hyder, et al.
|
Leslie London’s article on ethical oversight of health research is a welcome addition to the current discourse on collaborative research (research being sponsored by wealthy nations and conducted in resource poor settings of developing countries).1 The author has raised some important considerations that should affect ethical review process: research protocols that may not be in conjunction with local ethical codes, cultural appropriateness of research, and the potential of study populations being exploited by these studies. Although, these add to the ongoing debate about the ethical concerns of review processes involved in such research,2,3 little empirical work has been done to explore the experiences and attitudes of researchers from developing countries involved in collaborative research. Such work is a step towards recognizing the agency of another potentially vulnerable group—developing country researchers—in the global dialogue. One contribution was our study, which was part of a larger survey of US and developing country researchers sponsored by National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) 4. The study involved a self-administered survey with 169 questions and nine domains of inquiry sent to over 500 researchers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. 203 completed surveys were analyzed. Details of the methods, sample, and survey are available elsewhere 4. One objective of the study was to explore the experiences and attitudes of researchers from developing countries regarding institutional review boards (IRBs). A majority of researchers agreed that US ethical regulations (as of 1998-99) governing human subjects ensure high ethical standards, and that developing country collaborators rely on US ethical rules for guidance. At the same time a majority of respondents they voiced their concerns regarding US IRBs being insensitive to local cultural norms and traditions. Slightly more than half of the researchers thought that US, as well as developing country IRBs, are sometimes to always more concerned with politics than with protecting the interests of research subjects. Nearly two-thirds of the researchers agreed that international guidelines should be used for ethical reviews in developing countries instead of US regulations. Such empirical work provides an important insight about the opinions of researchers in resource-poor and low-income countries, and avoids assumptions about their attitudes. Similar explorations are critically needed for others vulnerable groups, such as research participants and communities in developing countries. This defines an important research agenda in the field of research ethics. References: 1.London L. Ethical oversight of public health research: can rules and IRBs make a difference in developing countries? Am J Public Health. 2002; 92: 1079-1084. 2.Barry M. Ethical Considerations of Human Investigation in Developing Countries: the AIDS Dilemma. N Engl J of Med. 1988; 319: 1083. 3.Angell M. Ethical imperialism-ethics in international collaborative clinical research. N Engl J of Med. 1988; 319: 1081-1083. 4.Lurie P, Wolfe S M. Unethical Trials of Interventions to Reduce Perinatal Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Developing Countries. N Engl J of Med. 1997; 337: 853-855. 5.Kass N, Hyder A. Attitudes and Experiences of U.S. and Developing Country Investigators Regarding U.S. Human Subject Regulations. Bethesda, MD. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. 2001. |
|||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |