Related Articles

This article is part of a series of papers examining ethical issues in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) in health research. In the introductory paper in this series, we set out six areas of inquiry that must be addressed if the CRT is to be set on a firm ethical foundation. This paper addresses the sixth of the questions posed, namely, what is the role and authority of gatekeepers in CRTs in health research? ‘Gatekeepers’ are individuals or bodies that represent the interests of cluster members, clusters, or organizations. The need for gatekeepers arose in response to the difficulties in obtaining informed consent because of cluster randomization, cluster-level interventions, and cluster size. In this paper, we call for a more restrictive understanding of the role and authority of gatekeepers.

Previous papers in this series have provided solutions to the challenges posed by informed consent in CRTs without the need to invoke gatekeepers. We considered that consent to randomization is not required when cluster members are approached for consent at the earliest opportunity and before any study interventions or data-collection procedures have started. Further, when cluster-level interventions or cluster size means that obtaining informed consent is not possible, a waiver of consent may be appropriate. In this paper, we suggest that the role of gatekeepers in protecting individual interests in CRTs should be limited. Generally, gatekeepers do not have the authority to provide proxy consent for cluster members. When a municipality or other community has a legitimate political authority that is empowered to make such decisions, cluster permission may be appropriate; however, gatekeepers may usefully protect cluster interests in other ways. Cluster consultation may ensure that the CRT addresses local health needs, and is conducted in accord with local values and customs. Gatekeepers may also play an important role in protecting the interests of organizations, such as hospitals, nursing homes, general practices, and schools. In these settings, permission to access the organization relies on resource implications and adherence to institutional policies.

The cluster randomized trial (CRT) is used increasingly in knowledge translation research, quality improvement research, community based intervention studies, public health research, and research in developing countries. However, cluster trials raise difficult ethical issues that challenge researchers, research ethics committees, regulators, and sponsors as they seek to fulfill responsibly their respective roles. Our project will provide a systematic analysis of the ethics of cluster trials. Here we have outlined a series of six areas of inquiry that must be addressed if the cluster trial is to be set on a firm ethical foundation:

1. Who is a research subject?

2. From whom, how, and when must informed consent be obtained?

3. Does clinical equipoise apply to CRTs?

4. How do we determine if the benefits outweigh the risks of CRTs?

5. How ought vulnerable groups be protected in CRTs?

6. Who are gatekeepers and what are their responsibilities?

Subsequent papers in this series will address each of these areas, clarifying the ethical issues at stake and, where possible, arguing for a preferred solution. Our hope is that these papers will serve as the basis for the creation of international ethical guidelines for the design and conduct of cluster randomized trials.

This article is part of a series of papers examining ethical issues in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) in health research. In the introductory paper in this series, Weijer and colleagues set out six areas of inquiry that must be addressed if the cluster trial is to be set on a firm ethical foundation. This paper addresses the third of the questions posed, namely, does clinical equipoise apply to CRTs in health research? The ethical principle of beneficence is the moral obligation not to harm needlessly and, when possible, to promote the welfare of research subjects. Two related ethical problems have been discussed in the CRT literature. First, are control groups that receive only usual care unduly disadvantaged? Second, when accumulating data suggests the superiority of one intervention in a trial, is there an ethical obligation to act?

In individually randomized trials involving patients, similar questions are addressed by the concept of clinical equipoise, that is, the ethical requirement that, at the start of a trial, there be a state of honest, professional disagreement in the community of expert practitioners as to the preferred treatment. Since CRTs may not involve physician-researchers and patient-subjects, the applicability of clinical equipoise to CRTs is uncertain. Here we argue that clinical equipoise may be usefully grounded in a trust relationship between the state and research subjects, and, as a result, clinical equipoise is applicable to CRTs. Clinical equipoise is used to argue that control groups receiving only usual care are not disadvantaged so long as the evidence supporting the experimental and control interventions is such that experts would disagree as to which is preferred. Further, while data accumulating during the course of a CRT may favor one intervention over another, clinical equipoise supports continuing the trial until the results are likely to be broadly convincing, often coinciding with the planned completion of the trial. Finally, clinical equipoise provides research ethics committees with formal and procedural guidelines that form an important part of the assessment of the benefits and harms of CRTs in health research.

This article is part of a series of papers examining ethical issues in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) in health research. In the introductory paper in this series, we set out six areas of inquiry that must be addressed if the CRT is to be set on a firm ethical foundation. This paper addresses the first of the questions posed, namely, who is the research subject in a CRT in health research? The identification of human research subjects is logically prior to the application of protections as set out in research ethics and regulation. Aspects of CRT design, including the fact that in a single study the units of randomization, experimentation, and observation may differ, complicate the identification of human research subjects. But the proper identification of human research subjects is important if they are to be protected from harm and exploitation, and if research ethics committees are to review CRTs efficiently.

We examine the research ethics literature and international regulations to identify the core features of human research subjects, and then unify these features under a single, comprehensive definition of human research subject. We define a human research subject as any person whose interests may be compromised as a result of interventions in a research study. Individuals are only human research subjects in CRTs if: (1) they are directly intervened upon by investigators; (2) they interact with investigators; (3) they are deliberately intervened upon via a manipulation of their environment that may compromise their interests; or (4) their identifiable private information is used to generate data. Individuals who are indirectly affected by CRT study interventions, including patients of healthcare providers participating in knowledge translation CRTs, are not human research subjects unless at least one of these conditions is met.

Background

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) pose ethical challenges for investigators and ethics committees. This study describes the views and experiences of CRT researchers with respect to: (1) ethical challenges in CRTs; (2) the ethics review process for CRTs; and (3) the need for comprehensive ethics guidelines for CRTs.

Methods

Descriptive qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with a purposive sample of 20 experienced CRT researchers.

Results

Informants expressed concern over the potential for bias that may result from requirements to obtain informed consent from research participants in CRTs. Informants suggested that the need for informed consent ought to be related to the type of intervention under study in a CRT. Informants rarely expressed concern regarding risks to research participants in CRTs, other than risks to privacy. Important issues identified in the research ethics literature, including fair subject selection and other justice issues, were not mentioned by informants. The ethics review process has had positive and negative impacts on CRT conduct. Informants stated that variability in ethics review between jurisdictions, and increasingly stringent ethics review in recent years, have hampered their ability to conduct CRTs. Many informants said that comprehensive ethics guidelines for CRTs would be helpful to researchers and research ethics committees.

Conclusions

Informants identified key ethical challenges in the conduct of CRTs, specifically relating to identifying subjects, seeking informed consent, and the use of gatekeepers. These data have since been used to identify topics for in-depth ethical analysis and to guide the development of comprehensive ethics guidelines for CRTs.

Background

The Nuremberg code defines the general ethical framework of medical research with participant consent as its cornerstone. In cluster randomized trials (CRT), obtaining participant informed consent raises logistic and methodologic concerns. First, with randomization of large clusters such as geographical areas, obtaining individual informed consent may be impossible. Second, participants in randomized clusters cannot avoid certain interventions, which implies that participant informed consent refers only to data collection, not administration of an intervention. Third, complete participant information may be a source of selection bias, which then raises methodological concerns. We assessed whether participant informed consent was required in such trials, which type of consent was required, and whether the trial was at risk of selection bias because of the very nature of participant information.

Methods and Findings

We systematically reviewed all reports of CRT published in MEDLINE in 2008 and surveyed corresponding authors regarding the nature of the informed consent and the process of participant inclusion. We identified 173 reports and obtained an answer from 113 authors (65.3%). In total, 23.7% of the reports lacked information on ethics committee approval or participant consent, 53.1% of authors declared that participant consent was for data collection only and 58.5% that the group allocation was not specified for participants. The process of recruitment (chronology of participant recruitment with regard to cluster randomization) was rarely reported, and we estimated that only 56.6% of the trials were free of potential selection bias.

Conclusions

For CRTs, the reporting of ethics committee approval and participant informed consent is less than optimal. Reports should describe whether participants consented for administration of an intervention and/or data collection. Finally, the process of participant recruitment should be fully described (namely, whether participants were informed of the allocation group before being recruited) for a better appraisal of the risk of selection bias.

Background

Improved quality of care is a policy objective of health care systems around the world. Implementation research is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of clinical research findings into routine clinical practice, and hence to reduce inappropriate care. It includes the study of influences on healthcare professionals' behaviour and methods to enable them to use research findings more effectively. Cluster randomized trials represent the optimal design for evaluating the effectiveness of implementation strategies. Various codes of medical ethics, such as the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki inform medical research, but their relevance to cluster randomised trials in implementation research is unclear. This paper discusses the applicability of various ethical codes to obtaining consent in cluster trials in implementation research.

Discussion

The appropriate application of biomedical codes to implementation research is not obvious. Discussion of the nature and practice of informed consent in implementation research cluster trials must consider the levels at which consent can be sought, and for what purpose it can be sought. The level at which an intervention is delivered can render the idea of patient level consent meaningless. Careful consideration of the ownership of information, and rights of access to and exploitation of data is required. For health care professionals and organizations, there is a balance between clinical freedom and responsibility to participate in research.

Summary

While ethical justification for clinical trials relies heavily on individual consent, for implementation research aspects of distributive justice, economics, and political philosophy underlie the debate. Societies may need to trade off decisions on the choice between individualized consent and valid implementation research. We suggest that social sciences codes could usefully inform the consideration of implementation research by members of Research Ethics Committees.

Tailoring medical treatment to individual patients requires a strong foundation in research to provide the data necessary to understand the relationship between the disease, the patient, and the type of treatment advocated for. Non-therapeutic oncology clinical trials studying therapeutic resistance require the participation of patients, yet only a small percentage enroll. Treating physicians are often relied on to recruit patients, but they have a number of ethical obligations that might be perceived as barriers to recruiting. Concepts such as voluntariness of consent and conflicts of interest can have an impact on whether physicians will discuss clinical trials with their patients and how patients perceive the information. However, these ethical obligations should not be prohibitive to physician recruitment of patients – precautions can be taken to ensure that patients’ consent to research participation is fully voluntary and devoid of conflict, such as the use of other members of the research team than the treating physician to discuss the trial and obtain consent, and better communication between researchers, clinicians, and patients. These can ensure that research benefits are maximized for the good of patients and society.

Medical research involving human subjects raises complex ethical, legal and social issues. Investigators sometimes find that their obligations with respect to a research project come into conflict with their obligations to individual patients. The ethical conduct of research rests on 3 guiding principles: respect for persons, beneficience, and justice. Respect for persons underlies the duty to obtain informed consent from study participants. Beneficence demands a favourable balance between the potential benefits and harms of participation. Justice requires that vulnerable people not be exploited and that eligible candidates who may benefit from participation not be excluded without good cause. Studies must be designed in a way that ensures the validity of findings and must address questions of sufficient importance to justify the risks of participation. In any clinical trial there must be genuine uncertainty as to which treatment arm offers the most benefit, and placebo controls should not be used if effective standard therapies exist. Researchers have a responsibility to inform themselves about the ethical, legal and policy standards that govern their activities. When difficulties arise, they should consult the existing literature and seek the advice of experts in research ethics.

Objectives To investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices.

Design Review of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline.

Setting Cluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008.

Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals.

Results 77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001).

Conclusions Reporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for.

Background

Authors are required to describe in their manuscripts ethical approval from an appropriate committee and how consent was obtained from participants when research involves human participants.

Objective

To assess the reporting of these protections for several study designs in general medical journals.

Design

A consecutive series of research papers published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine between February and May 2003 were reviewed for the reporting of ethical approval and patient consent. Ethical approval, name of approving committee, type of consent, data source and whether the study used data collected as part of a study reported elsewhere were recorded. Differences in failure to report approval and consent by study design, journal and vulnerable study population were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression.

Results

Ethical approval and consent were not mentioned in 31% and 47% of manuscripts, respectively. 88 (27%) papers failed to report both approval and consent. Failure to mention ethical approval or consent was significantly more likely in all study designs (except case–control and qualitative studies) than in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Failure to mention approval was most common in the BMJ and was significantly more likely than in The New England Journal of Medicine. Failure to mention consent was most common in the BMJ and was significantly more likely than in all other journals. No significant differences in approval or consent were found when comparing studies of vulnerable and non‐vulnerable participants.

Conclusion

The reporting of ethical approval and consent in RCTs has improved, but journals are less good at reporting this information for other study designs. Journals should publish this information for all research on human participants.

Background

Clinical trials involving children previously considered unethical are now considered essential because of the inherent physiological differences between children and adults. An integral part of research ethics is the informed consent, which for children is obtained by proxy from a consenting parent or guardian. The informed consent process is governed by international ethical codes that are interpreted in accordance with local laws and procedures raising the importance of contextualizing their implementation.

Findings

In Zimbabwe the parental informed consent document for children participating in clinical research is modeled along western laws of ethics and requires that the parent or legally authorized representative provide consent on behalf of a minor. This article highlights the experiences and lessons learnt by Zimbabwean researchers in obtaining informed consent from guardians of orphaned children participating in a collaborative HIV clinical trial involving the Medical Research Council, United Kingdom and four centers, three of which are in Uganda. Researchers were faced with a situation where caregivers of orphaned children were not permitted to provide informed consent for trial participation. The situation contrasted with general clinical practice where consent for procedures on orphans is obtained from their caregivers who are not legal guardians.

Conclusion

The challenges faced in obtaining informed consent for orphans in this clinical trial underscores the need for the Zimbabwe ethics committee to develop an ethical and legal framework for pediatric research that is based on international guidelines while taking into account the cultural context. The Medical Research Council of Zimbabwe has since started the process that is expected to involve critical stakeholders namely the community including children, ethicists, the legal fraternity and researchers.

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are becoming increasingly common in environmental health research. Like all studies involving human subjects, environmental health RCTs raise many different ethical issues, ranging from obtaining informed consent, to minimizing risks, to protecting privacy and confidentiality. One of the most important issues raised by these studies is whether it is ethical to withhold effective environmental health interventions from research subjects in order to satisfy scientific objectives. Although environmental health investigators usually do not have professional obligations to provide medical care to research subjects, they have ethical obligations to avoid exploiting them. Withholding interventions from research subjects can be ethical, provided that it does not lead to exploitation of individuals or groups. To avoid exploiting individuals or groups, investigators should ensure that research subjects and study populations receive a fair share of the benefits of research.

Inner-city health research can be challenging because it deals wit vulnerable populations and sometimes puts investigators in difficult situations. Some challenges are methodological, including selecting the optimal research design, implementing effective methods of recruitment and retention, and determining the best approach to data analysis. Other issues are practical, including addressing potential biases in social research; dealing with conflicting research agendas among investigators, community agencies, and funding agencies; and disseminating research findings effectively. Another set of issues relates to the ethical conduct of, research, including ensuring privacy, maintaining confidentiality, and obtaining consent that is informed, not coerced, and not influenced by undue inducements. Throughout the research endeavor, the inner-city health researcher must carefully balance the roles of investigator, advocate, activist, and caregiver.

Drug trials in children engage with many ethical issues, from drug-related safety concerns to communication with patients and parents, and recruitment and informed consent procedures. This paper addresses the field of neuromuscular disorders where the possibility of genetic, mutation-specific treatments, has added new complexity. Not only must trial design address issues of equity of access, but researchers must also think through the implications of adopting a personalised medicine approach, which requires a precise molecular diagnosis, in addition to other implications of developing orphan drugs. It is against this background of change and complexity that the Project Ethics Council (PEC) was established within the TREAT-NMD EU Network of Excellence. The PEC is a high level advisory group that draws upon the expertise of its interdisciplinary membership which includes clinicians, lawyers, scientists, parents, representatives of patient organisations, social scientists and ethicists. In this paper we describe the establishment and terms of reference of the PEC, give an indication of the range and depth of its work and provide some analysis of the kinds of complex questions encountered. The paper describes how the PEC has responded to substantive ethical issues raised within the TREAT-NMD consortium and how it has provided a wider resource for any concerned parent, patient, or clinician to ask a question of ethical concern. Issues raised range from science related ethical issues, issues related to hereditary neuromuscular diseases and the new therapeutic approaches and questions concerning patients rights in the context of patient registries and bio-banks. We conclude by recommending the PEC as a model for similar research contexts in rare diseases.

In a wide ranging paper the author, a barrister, considers medical ethics in the context of divided loyalties, particularly those of a doctor employed by the National Health Service and those of doctors in occupational medicine. He argues for more specific professional codes of medical ethics, especially in relation to the need to obtain patients' explicit consent before medical details are transmitted to third parties. On the thorny question of when, if ever, can the good of society override the doctor's special duty to his patient of confidentiality, he urges medical organisations to be more explicit at least on how members can set about resolving such dilemmas - mere assertion that a problem exists and that individual doctors must resolve it according to their consciences is not good enough, he says. Extolling honesty and openness as fundamental values he ends by suggesting that part of a binding code of medical ethics might be a requirement that doctors display in their waiting rooms information about their personal moral stances concerning major dilemmas of medical ethics. The paper was given as the Lucas lecture under the aegis of the Royal College of Physicians' Faculty of Occupational Medicine, in whose journal it is also published.

Millions of people undergo displacement in the world. Internally displaced people (IDP) are especially vulnerable as they are not protected by special legislation in contrast to other migrants. Research conducted among IDPs must be correspondingly sensitive in dealing with ethical issues that may arise. Muslim IDPs in Puttalam district in the North-Western province of Sri Lanka were initially displaced from Northern Sri Lanka due to the conflict in 1991. In the backdrop of a study exploring the prevalence of common mental disorders among the IDPs, researchers encountered various ethical challenges. These included inter-related issues of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, confidentiality and informed consent, and how these were tailored in a culture-specific way to a population that has increased vulnerability. This paper analyses how these ethical issues were perceived, detected and managed by the researchers, and the role of ethics review committees in mental health research concerning IDPs. The relevance of guidelines and methodologies in the context of an atypical study population and the benefit versus risk potential of research for IDPs are also discussed. The limitations that were encountered while dealing with ethical challenges during the study are discussed. The concept of post-research ethical conduct audit is suggested to be considered as a potential step to minimize the exploitation of vulnerable populations such as IDPs in mental health research.

Background

In pediatric environmental health research, information about family members is often directly sought or indirectly obtained in the process of identifying child risk factors and helping to tease apart and identify interactions between genetic and environmental factors. However, federal regulations governing human subjects research do not directly address ethical issues associated with protections for family members who are not identified as the primary “research participant.” Ethical concerns related to family consent and privacy become paramount as pediatric environmental health research increasingly turns to questions of gene–environment interactions.

Objectives

In this article I identify issues arising from and potential solutions for the privacy and informed consent challenges of pediatric environmental health research intended to adequately protect the rights and welfare of children, family members, and communities.

Discussion

I first discuss family members as secondary research participants and then the specific ethical challenges of longitudinal research on late-onset environmental effects and gene–environment interactions. I conclude with a discussion of the confidentiality and social risks of recruitment and data collection of research conducted within small or unique communities, ethnic minority populations, and low-income families.

Conclusions

The responsible conduct of pediatric environmental health research must be conceptualized as a goodness of fit between the specific research context and the unique characteristics of subjects and other family stakeholders.

The use of placebos in therapy or research poses ethical questions. What are the benefits and the costs in ethical terms of condoning deception of the patient or subject? What does the deception mean for the patient's or subject's right to give informed consent to his treatment?

Doctors are rightly expected to disclose to their patient facts which would in their judgement best enable him to give informed consent to treatment. On occasion, the degree of this disclosure may be limited by the need to avoid hazarding the success of treatment of an unstable patient whose condition threatens his life, but doctors should have no right to withhold information just to prevent a patient refusing consent to therapy. No such limitation should apply in experiments where full disclosure must operate to enable the subject to give his informed consent.

The potential medical benefits for the patient of placebo therapy have to be weighed against all the ethical costs of the deception and dishonesty involved, including the longer term repercussions on doctor/patient trust: similar ethical costs may arise in experiments involving the use of placebos without disclosure of this as a possibility to the subject. Deception is ethically degrading to both parties not only being a breach of trust, but denying the moral autonomy of the patient or subject to make his own choice.

The writer concludes that placebos should be used only with full disclosure and consent whether in therapy or in research, and that this need not impede the success of either.

The conduct of experimental studies in humans is governed by a body of principles whose main precepts have evolved over the past few decades. Three of these provide the foundations for judging the ethical adequacy of such an experiment. One addresses the question of who receives the benefits of the research and who bears its burdens (justice). A second requires that the research maximize the potential benefits to the subjects and minimize the risk of harm (beneficence). The third, the source of guidelines for informed consent, requires that subjects enter into the research voluntarily and with adequate information (respect for persons). Unlike research conducted to evaluate drugs, however, environmental exposures to potentially toxic chemicals do not survey those exposed for their consent, nor do they provide an appropriate calculus for measuring risks and benefits, which typically involve two different populations. Especially for exposure to developmental neurotoxicants, where the risk-benefit incompatibility can be so striking, another element may need to be incorporated into risk characterization: a process of ethics assessment. A scheme for doing so can be derived from the procedures of fuzzy logic, which allow rules to be formulated that are applicable to ethical principles. Such an approach incorporates some of the tenets of the precautionary principle.

Background

This paper reviews the past 25 years of empirical research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on matters of ethics in psychiatric research.

Methods

Using the NIH RePORTER and Medline databases, we identified 43 grants and 77 publications that involved the empirical study of a matter of ethics in research involving mental health service users.

Results

These articles provide original and useful information on important topics, most especially the capacity to consent and the voluntariness of consent. For example, participants who share a diagnosis vary widely in levels of cognitive impairment that correlate with decisional capacity, and capacity to consent can be enhanced easily using iterative consent processes. Few articles address matters of justice or benefits in research, particularly from the perspectives of participants. No articles address matters of privacy, confidentiality, or researcher professionalism.

Conclusions

Despite the usefulness of data from the studies conducted to date, current research on research ethics in psychiatry does not adequately address the concerns of service users as expressed in recent publications.

In the previous issue of Critical Care Chenaud and colleagues found that most intensive care unit patients who had given informed consent for their participation in a clinical trial could not recall either the purpose of the trial or its related risks several days later. These findings should remind us that informed consent is a process, not an event, but they should not be interpreted to mean that recall is, of itself, a useful criterion for evaluating either the validity or the quality of the informed consent process. On an entirely separate note, the decision of the authors not to obtain informed consent for this study itself raises interesting questions about the ethics of doing research on the ethics of doing research.

OBJECTIVE: To monitor the conduct of medical research projects that have already been approved by the local medical research ethics committee. DESIGN: Follow up study of ethically approved studies (randomly selected from all the studies approved in the previous year) by examination of patients' case notes, consent forms, and research records and by interview of the researchers at their workplace. SETTING: Tayside, Scotland (mixed rural and urban population). SUBJECTS: 30 research projects approved by Tayside local medical research ethics committee. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to the agreed protocol, particularly for recruitment (obtaining and recording informed consent) and for specific requirements of the ethics committee, including notification of changes to the protocol and of adverse events. RESULTS: In one project only oral consent had been obtained, and in a quarter of the studies one or more consent forms were incorrectly completed. Inadequate filing of case notes in five studies and of consent forms in six made them unavailable for scrutiny. Adverse events were reported, but there was a general failure to report the abandoning or non-starting of projects in two studies the investigators failed to notify a change in the responsible researcher. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring of medical research by local medical research ethics committees promotes and preserves ethical standards, protects subjects and researchers, discourages fraud, and has the support of investigators. We recommend that 10% of projects should undergo on-site review, with all others monitored by questionnaire. This would require about six person hours of time and a salary bill of 120 pounds per study monitored.

Malaria is a disease of developing countries whose local health services do not have the time, resources or personnel to mount studies of drugs or vaccines without the collaboration and technology of western investigators. This investigative collaboration requires a unique bridging of cultural differences with respect to human investigation. The following debate, sponsored by The Institute of Medicine and The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, raises questions concerning the conduct of trans-cultural clinical malaria research. Specific questions are raised about the difficulties of informed consent in different cultural settings and whether there is any role for community involvement. Discussants debate whether drug and vaccine trials not approved in an industrialised country are ever defensible if performed in a third-world setting. Potential conflicting priorities between investigators are discussed and ideas regarding conflict resolution are offered.

In contrast with issues of consent capacity, financial capacity has received surprisingly little clinical or ethical attention in the psychiatric literature. Issues of financial capacity emerge frequently regarding clients with serious mental illness (SMI), and their resolution has practical and ethical significance for clients, their families, and mental health professionals. These issues include whether a client has sufficient financial skills and judgment to live independently, whether a client requires a representative payee, and what goals for community reintegration should be established with a client. Similar to informed consent, issues of financial capacity raise ethical challenges for clinicians, caseworkers, and agencies. The present article addresses clinical and research ethics questions related to financial capacity in clients with schizophrenia and SMI. Clinical questions concern evaluation of financial capacity in clients with SMI, whether to seek assignment of a mandatory representative payee, whether to leverage treatment compliance through a representative payee arrangement, and whether a mental health professional should also serve as a client's representative payee. The research ethics question addresses implications of providing financial compensation for research participation to individuals with SMI and limited financial capacity and means. The ultimate goal of this article is to focus clinical and ethical attention on a neglected decisional capacity in SMI that is of fundamental importance for clients, families, clinicians, and researchers.