Towards an ethics safe harbor for global biomedical research

Although increasingly global, data-driven genomics and other ‘omics’-focused research hold great promise for health discoveries, current research ethics review systems around the world challenge potential improvements in human health from such research. To overcome this challenge, we propose a ‘Safe Harbor Framework for International Ethics Equivalency’ that facilitates the harmonization of ethics review of specific types of data-driven international research projects while respecting globally transposable research ethics norms and principles. The Safe Harbor would consist in part of an agency supporting an International Federation for Ethics Review (IFER), formed by a voluntary compact among countries, granting agencies, philanthropies, institutions, and healthcare, patient advocacy, and research organizations. IFER would be both a central ethics review body, and also a forum for review and follow-up of policies concerning ethics norms for international research projects. It would be built on five principle elements: (1) registration, (2) compliance review, (3) recognition, (4) monitoring and enforcement, and (5) public participation. The Safe Harbor would create many benefits for researchers, countries, and the general public, and may eventually have application beyond (gen)omics to other areas of biomedical research that increasingly engage in secondary use of data and present only negligible risks.

[1]  A. Gerlak,et al.  Building a Conceptual Approach to Collective Learning: Lessons for Public Policy Scholars , 2013 .

[2]  E. Meslin,et al.  Taking Stock of the Ethical Foundations of International Health Research: Pragmatic Lessons from the IU–Moi Academic Research Ethics Partnership , 2013, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[3]  Mark I McCarthy,et al.  Data sharing in large research consortia: experiences and recommendations from ENGAGE , 2013, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[4]  M. Fontaine.  Law harmonization and local specificities – a case study: OHADA and the law of contracts , 2013 .

[5]  Paul Wallace,et al.  Use of electronic patient records for research: views of patients and staff in general practice. , 2013, Family practice.

[6]  Jaana M. Hartikainen,et al.  Large-scale genotyping identifies 41 new loci associated with breast cancer risk , 2013, Nature Genetics.

[7]  Alena Buyx,et al.  A solidarity-based approach to the governance of research biobanks. , 2013, Medical law review.

[8]  M. Dunn.  Getting the justification for research ethics review right , 2012, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[9]  B. Knoppers,et al.  Sampling populations of humans across the world: ELSI issues. , 2012, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[10]  M. Dyck,et al.  Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical? , 2012, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[11]  P. Appelbaum,et al.  How Closely Do Institutional Review Boards Follow the Common Rule? , 2012, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[12]  H. Guo,et al.  Public Participation and Organizational Performance: Evidence from State Agencies , 2012 .

[13]  T. Caulfield,et al.  Legal liability and research ethics boards: the case of neuroimaging and incidental findings. , 2012, International journal of law and psychiatry.

[14]  M. Sheehan.  Can Broad Consent be Informed Consent? , 2011, Public health ethics.

[15]  T. Caulfield,et al.  Balancing Efficiency and the Protection of Research Participants: Canadian Allergy/Asthma Researchers' Perspectives on the Ethics Review of Multi-Site Health Research , 2011 .

[16]  M. Sutrop.  Changing Ethical Frameworks: From Individual Rights to the Common Good? , 2011, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.

[17]  Jane Kaye,et al.  From single biobanks to international networks: developing e-governance , 2011, Human Genetics.

[18]  Alessandro Liberati,et al.  Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews , 2011, Health research policy and systems.

[19]  Michael Parker,et al.  Ethical issues in human genomics research in developing countries , 2011, BMC medical ethics.

[20]  J. Menikoff,et al.  The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  E. Dorsey,et al.  Local institutional review board (IRB) review of a multicenter trial: Local costs without local context , 2010, Annals of neurology.

[22]  Wendy A. Wolf,et al.  Public and Biobank Participant Attitudes toward Genetic Research Participation and Data Sharing , 2010, Public Health Genomics.

[23]  Ruha Benjamin.  A Lab of Their Own: Genomic sovereignty as postcolonial science policy , 2009 .

[24]  Jeffrey T. Chang,et al.  Utilization of Genomic Signatures to Identify Phenotype-Specific Drugs , 2009, PloS one.

[25]  Stuart Hargreaves.  Inadequate: The APEC Privacy Framework & Article 25 of the European Data Protection Directive , 2009 .

[26]  R. Isasi.  Policy Interoperability in Stem Cell Research: Demystifying Harmonization , 2009, Stem Cell Reviews and Reports.

[27]  P. Hebert,et al.  Research ethics review: Do it once and do it well , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[28]  P. Ubel,et al.  Pruning the regulatory tree , 2009, Nature.

[29]  M Margaret Dolcini,et al.  Survey of U.S. Human Research Protection Organizations: Workload and Membership , 2008, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[30]  K. Brazil,et al.  Who's minding the shop? The role of Canadian research ethics boards in the creation and uses of registries and biobanks , 2008, BMC Medical Ethics.

[31]  Abdallah S. Daar,et al.  Genomics, public health and developing countries: the case of the Mexican National Institute of Genomic Medicine (INMEGEN) , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[32]  S. Brahmachari,et al.  From diversity to delivery: the case of the Indian Genome Variation initiative , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[33]  Joshua M. Korn,et al.  Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways , 2008, Nature.

[34]  S. McGuinness.  Research ethics committees: the role of ethics in a regulatory authority , 2008, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[35]  M. Sheehan.  Should research ethics committees meet in public? , 2008, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[36]  Abdallah S. Daar,et al.  Genomic medicine and developing countries: creating a room of their own , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[37]  S. Burris.  Regulatory Innovation in the Governance of Human Subjects Research: A Cautionary Tale and Some Modest Proposals , 2008 .

[38]  K. Getz,et al.  Determining the costs of Institutional Review Boards. , 2007, IRB.

[39]  M Dixon-Woods,et al.  Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison , 2006, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[40]  K. Getz,et al.  Variability in the Costs of Institutional Review Board Oversight , 2006, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[41]  Bartha Maria Knoppers,et al.  Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics , 2006, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[42]  W. Tierney,et al.  A Needs Assessment to Build International Research Ethics Capacity , 2006, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[43]  J. Lowery,et al.  Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. , 2006, Health services research.

[44]  D. Korn,et al.  The costs of institutional review boards. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[45]  E. Emanuel,et al.  The cost of institutional review boards in academic medical centers. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[46]  T. Wagner,et al.  Economies of Scale in Institutional Review Boards , 2004, Medical care.

[47]  T. Wagner,et al.  The cost of institutional review board procedures in multicenter observational research. , 2003, Annals of internal medicine.

[48]  A. Vernon,et al.  The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium. , 2003, Controlled clinical trials.

[49]  J. A. E. Faria,et al.  Future Directions of Legal Harmonisation and Law Reform : Stormy Seas or Prosperous Voyage ? , 2009 .

[50]  P. Robinson,et al.  Book Review : Bennett, B. Health law's kaleidoscope : Health law rights in a global age , 2008 .

[51]  J. Basedow.  Worldwide Harmonisation of Private Law and Regional Economic Integration - General Report , 2003 .

[52]  J. Rendtorff.  Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw: Autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability – Towards a foundation of bioethics and biolaw , 2002, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.