Search

Abstract Background Research activities in sub-Saharan Africa may be limited to delegated tasks due to the strong control from Western collaborators, which could lead to scientific production of little value in terms of its impact on social and economic innovation in less developed areas. However, the current contexts of international biomedical research including the development of public-private partnerships and research institutions in Africa suggest that scientific activities are growing in sub-Saharan Africa. This study aims to describe the patterns of clinical research activities at a sub-Saharan biomedical research center. Methods In-depth interviews were conducted with a core group of researchers at the Medical Research Unit of the Albert Schweitzer Hospital from June 2009 to February 2010 in Lambaréné, Gabon. Scientific activities running at the MRU as well as the implementation of ethical and regulatory standards were covered by the interview sessions. Results The framework of clinical research includes transnational studies and research initiated locally. In transnational collaborations, a sub-Saharan research institution may be limited to producing confirmatory and late-stage data with little impact on economic and social innovation. However, ethical and regulatory guidelines are being implemented taking into consideration the local contexts. Similarly, the scientific content of studies designed by researchers at the MRU, if local needs are taken into account, may potentially contribute to a scientific production with long-term value on social and economic innovation in sub-Saharan Africa. Conclusion Further research questions and methods in social sciences should comprehensively address the construction of scientific content with the social, economic and cultural contexts surrounding research activities.

In March 2020, the rapid increase in severe COVID‐19 cases overwhelmed the healthcare systems in several European countries. The capacities for artificial ventilation in intensive care units were too scarce to care for patients with acute respiratory disorder connected to the disease. Several professional associations published COVID‐19 triage recommendations in an extremely short time: in 21 days between March 6 and March 27. In this article, we compare recommendations from five European countries, which combine medical and ethical reflections on this situation in some detail. Our aim is to provide a detailed overview on the ethical elements of the recommendations, the differences between them and their coherence. In more general terms we want to identify shortcomings in regard to a common European response to the current situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Medien und Altern is the property of kopaed Verlags GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

An editorial is presented on Bioethics. Topic including modifying human embryos for the purpose of reproduction; World Health Organization (WHO), as well as the U.S. National Academy of Medicine, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, together with the Royal Society of the Great Britain, have taken up the lead on discussing the ethics and eventual governance of germline genome editing (GGE).

The ethical aspects of placebo control in clinical trials have been extensively and controversially debated in the last decade. However, a thorough analytical comparison of the different existing international regulations, their terminologies and their ethical principles concerning placebo, is still missing. The central issue in the ongoing controversy is the justification of placebo-use, if proven treatment exists. All present versions of the examined guidelines propose such justifications, but each guideline differs from the others in relevant details. Therefore the conditions justifying placebo-use according to each guideline are the focus of our attention. We will first propose a formalized general principle that defines the ethical acceptability of placebo-use. Then we will analyse three categories of conditions put forward by the different documents: the risk of harm or burden, compelling scientific reasons, and the availability of proven treatment. The analysis shows important normative discrepancies and contradictions between the examined guidelines. Especially striking is the fact that some guidelines allow the participants in clinical trials to be exposed to a risk of serious harm, while others do not. Finally, we try to show how the normative difference of each guideline could influence the decision of researchers or IRBs concerning the ethical acceptabililty of placebo-use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]