(UPDATE) U.S., Int’l Org’n Apologize for Intentional Infection of Guatemalans in the Forties

Jodi Jacobson

The US Government today apologized for funding a study in the 1940s in which researchers intentionally infected hundreds of vulnerable people in Guatemala with gonorrhea and syphilis.

UPDATE: Following on an apology released today by the U.S. government for its involvement in supporting research that included the intentional infection of hundreds of disenfranchised Guatemalans with syphilis and gonorrhea, the Pan American Health Organization has also released a statement apologizing for its role. The statement reads in part (and is copied in full below in the comments):

This research was conducted by the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory of the Public Health Service and venereal disease experts from Guatemala, with funds given to the Pan American Sanitary Bureau (PAHO’s precursor) by the U.S. Institutes of Health, and with some cooperation by Guatemalan authorities. Dr. John Cutler, who conducted these experiments and worked on the infamous Tuskegee experiments, was then a Public Health Service medical officer.

We are just learning details of these experiments, and the US Institute of Medicine is now conducting an investigation. The Organization has established strong ethical standards for research it sponsors or is associated with to prevent such abuses for many years now. Currently, research ethics in PAHO is overseen by the PAHO Ethics Review Committee (PAHOERC), an interdisciplinary group of up to 13 professionals. The PAHOERC review process ensures that all research with human subjects in which PAHO is involved meets international ethical standards in accordance with three basic ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. We deeply regret the past ethical violations revealed this week and we are committed to cooperating fully with Member States, particularly the United States and Guatemala, to clarify these events and to ensure that such ethical violations are never allowed to take place again in the name of public health.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE:

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The United States Government today apologized for funding a study in the 1940s in which U.S. government medical researchers intentionally infected hundreds of people in Guatemala–including institutionalized mental patients and prisoners–with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge or permission. Secretary of State Clinton also personally apologized to Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom. The public apology was directed to Guatemala and to Hispanic residents of the United States, according to the State Department.

The experiments involved 696 subjects — male prisoners and female patients in the National Mental Health Hospital. Many of those infected were encouraged to pass the infection onto others as part of the study.  The researchers were trying to determine whether the antibiotic penicillin could prevent early syphilis infection, not just cure it, according to an analysis of the research. Subjects were infected with the syphilis bacteria — through visits with prostitutes who had the disease and direct inoculations. About one third of those who were infected never got adequate treatment and it is unclear whether those who did were later cured.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius offered extensive apologies for actions taken by the U.S. Public Health Service.

“The sexually transmitted disease inoculation study conducted from 1946-1948 in Guatemala was clearly unethical,” according to the joint statement from Clinton and Sebelius. “Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health. We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices.”

The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health through the Pan American Sanitation Bureau (now the Pan-American Health Organization), was carried out by the late John Cutler, a medical doctor and then an employee of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS).

Cutler later led the infamous “Tuskegee” Syphilis Study in which the USPHS monitored the progression of late-stage syphilis in hundreds of African American men for forty years (1932-1972), without ever offering them treatment.

Evidence of the Guatemala study was uncovered by Dr. Susan Retherby, a medical historian, professor of Gender and Women’s Studies at Wellesley College, and an expert on the Tuskegee study. According to Wellesley, Retherby first found material on the Guatemala study while “digging” in the archives at the University of Pittsburgh where she was conducting research on her book about the history and myths surrounding the the Tuskegee Syphilis.

“She did not expect what she finally wrote up to make it to the White House, through the State Department and to Guatemala,” says a release by Wellesley.

The book, Examining Tuskegee, was published in November 2009.

After finishing the book, Retherby wrote an historical analysis about the medical research study in Guatemala between 1946 and 1948. Men and women were purposely infected with syphilis in the Guatemala study, but were also offered a penicillin cure. However, it appears, not everyone was cured and “the research should never have been done this way,” notes Wellesley. She alerted HHS and the State Department to her findings.

On a call today, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Affairs underscored the serious nature of the human rights and ethical violations that occurred in the Guatemala study and explained efforts to ensure increasing vigilance over the ethics involved in bio-medical research involving human subjects.

Collins called the episode “deeply disturbing” and “an appalling example from a dark chapter in medicine.” He complimented Retherby on her work, and stated that “today we have protections [in place] to prohibit such unethical conduct.”

“In the forties, there were no formalized regulations in place to protect human subjects in research,” said Collins. “Today there are regulations in place that would absolutely prohibit this type of study. And NIH, DHHS, and the entire US govt are committed to protecting persons in research.”

Nevertheless, bioethicists must remain vigilant in ensuring that these types of violations never occur again, he said. The United States is commissioning two studies, one domestic and one international, to look into violations of research ethics and to ensure international consensus on continued evolution in and application of ethical norms in biomedical ethics.

Collins pointed to four violations evident in the Guatemala study:

  • Conducting research on one or more vulnerable populations
  • Lack of any evidence of informed consent of the participants
  • Deception by the researchers in telling participants about the implications for their health and lives of the research in which they were being used as subjects
  • No understanding or consent by participants that they were being intentionally infected.

Asked whether there might be other examples of such ethical breaches not yet uncovered, Dr. Collins said that “when one considers that ethical standards at the time were inadequate, we can identify at least 40 other studies that were done domestically with intentional infections.”

While researchers must now go through ethics reviews of their proposed protocols and be cleared by Institutional Review Boards at the colleges and universities at which they are doing their research, or through NIH, for example, Collins underscored that the U.S. government was committed to investigating these issues further and is setting up two commissions to do so.

The U.S. government is asking the Institutes of Medicine to convene a committee of experts to study and issue a report on all facts of this study. And the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues will convene an international commission to ensure that all human research meets rigorous ethical standards throughout the world. No timeline has yet been set for completion of the work of these commissions.

Next week, says William Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition of STD Directors, “the nation’s leaders in combating sexually transmitted diseases will be gathering in Texas for our annual meeting, and we do intend to move a resolution condemning this experience and calling on our government to ensure transparency on all ongoing studies on STDs.”

What is clear is that this new discovery also further highlights the ways in which racism and discrimination completely infected the white-dominated medical and research establishment at the time, such that people of color, black, brown, poor, vulnerable, were treated as less than human, and fair game for unethical practices that at the time weren’t even considered unethical.

A transcript of the press call with Collins and Valenzuela, which became available at 5:36 pm on Friday, October 1. 2010, can be found here.

News Abortion

Democrat: House GOP’s Fetal Tissue Panel Pushes ‘Dangerous Witch Hunt’

Nicole Knight Shine

Republicans' ongoing investigations into fetal tissue research are “reminiscent of Sen. Joe McCarthy’s abusive tactics," Rep. Jan Schakowsky said.

Any illusion that the first hearing of the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives wasn’t a shrouded partisan attack on abortion rights vanished in the first minutes of the nearly four-hour hearing on Wednesday.

The ostensible aim of the hearing, called “Bioethics and Fetal Tissue,” was to hear testimony of tissue-research scientists and bioethics experts on the subject of fetal tissue research. Instead, House Republicans took turns dissecting reproductive rights amid testimony comparing fetal tissue research to the horrific experiments of Nazi Josef Mengele. Democrats called for the panel to disband, with Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) saying the investigation was “a partisan and dangerous witch hunt.”

House GOP leaders last summer established the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, made up of eight Republicans and six Democrats, to investigate claims that abortion providers and firms “sell baby body parts.” The effort was part of a flurry of state and federal investigations into allegations of illegal fetal tissue sales by Planned Parenthood.

Federal and state GOP legislators launched investigations into Planned Parenthood’s fetal tissue program after an anti-choice front group, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), released a series of widely discredited smear videos edited to make it appear the health-care organization was breaking the law. CMP officials have worked closely with Republican lawmakers to defund Planned Parenthood.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Schakowsky, the minority leader, was quick to point out that multiple investigations have found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood; 12 states so far have cleared the health-care provider.

Partisan rhetoric, Schakowsky said, had created a climate of violence.

“We live in a world where researchers who use fetal tissue are compared to Nazi war criminals and extremists have tried to burn clinics to the ground,” Schakowsky said.

Schakowsky blasted Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), chair of the House panel, for subpoenaing the names of patients, medical students, and clinic personnel performing abortions or conducting fetal tissue research, calling it “reminiscent of Sen. Joe McCarthy’s abusive tactics.”

“There is no apparent reason for this other than harassment and intimidation,” Schakowsky said.

Blackburn said the CMP footage “revealed that something very troubling is going on related to fetal tissue and research.”

During the hearing, a motion by panel member Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) to quash Blackburn’s subpoenas failed in a party-line vote of 8 to 6.

Representatives on the panel took turns questioning six people who had been called to testify. Appearing first were R. Alta Charo, the Warren P. Knowles professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison; Dr. Gerard Kevin Donovan, senior clinical scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University; and Paige Comstock Cunningham, executive director of the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity and the former head of the anti-choice group Americans United for Life (AUL).

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) drilled into those who came to testify, asking them to answer quick yes-or-no questions about their biases and expertise. Both Cunningham and Donovan admitted they oppose abortion rights, support bans on fetal tissue research from abortion, and are not research scientists.

DeGette then focused on Donovan, asking him about comments linking abortion care to the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi doctor of Auschwitz.

“It was you who talked about the Tuskegee and the Mengele experiments,” DeGette said. “Do you … make fetal tissue donations from abortion equal to those experiments?”

“I think that we need to be very careful,” Donovan said.

DeGette pressed him for an answer, “Do you think they’re equal, yes or no? Yes or no?”

“Maybe,” Donovan said.

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) asked Charo to confirm that fetal tissue research in this country must adhere to strict legal and ethical guidelines, which Charo did.

DelBene continued, “And professor do you think it’s ethical to use ideology about women’s rights to shape the rules that guide scientific research, and why or why not?”

“I’m very, very unhappy at seeing a debate around abortion turn into a debate around scientific research,” Charo said. “That’s not to say that I’m happy about the debate about abortion either, because I find it really offensive to imagine that women are incapable about making their own decisions about whether to have an abortion and whether or not to donate the tissue.”

Halfway through the hearing, the panel called on its second round of experts: Larry Goldstein, the distinguished professor of cellular and molecular medicine at the UC San Diego School of Medicine and director of the UC San Diego Stem Cell Program; Patrick Lee, the director of the Center for Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville; and Kathleen M. Schmainda, professor of radiology and biophysics at the Center for Imaging Research at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

Responding to a question about the potential scientific toll of restricting fetal tissue research, Goldstein said “research into deadly disease will slow down.”

Goldstein recalled testifying at a fetal tissue research hearing with Christopher Reeve, the late actor and stem-cell research advocate who was paralyzed after suffering a spinal cord injury. Reeve died after going into a coma following treatment of an infected pressure wound.

“And the fact was, time was at stake,” Goldstein said. “He unfortunately didn’t live long enough to see us put an appropriate fetal neural stem cell type into clinical trial.”

As the hours dragged on, lawmakers’ questions drifted far afield of the subject of fetal tissue research.

House Republicans’ questions ran the gamut of anti-choice fear-mongering: Do developing brains of “minors” render them capable of consenting to abortion care? Should terminated fetuses be cremated or buried?

Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) rushed to the defense of David Daleiden, who faces felony charges for his role in CMP’s smear videos targeting Planned Parenthood. Bucshon said: “I would just remind everyone in the crowd that charges and indictments don’t mean guilt.”

Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) said she’d recently heard reports of a fetus that survived an abortion procedure in Arizona. She asked the panel whether abortion clinics should be equipped with neonatal care units.

Lee and Schmainda, both opposed to abortion care and fetal tissue research from the procedure, said yes. Goldstein declined to answer the question, saying he’s not an expert in abortion facility requirements.

Black, a former nurse, called for Congress to create a new “blue ribbon commission” to study fetal tissue research.

A similar commission during the Reagan era unanimously approved the use of fetal tissue research from abortion.

CORRECTION: A version of this article misstated Christopher Reeve’s cause of death.

Analysis Human Rights

From Tuskegee to Transparency: An Evolution in the Ethics and Accountability of Clinical Trials Involving Human Subjects

Kate Ryan & Anna Forbes

People who participate in clinical trials take the enormous step of volunteering to test a product that may be useful and, sometimes, life-saving if it turns out to be effective. They play an irreplaceable role in research to prevent, treat, and sometimes cure illness – as well as to find other ways to improve people’s health and lives.

An error in this article was corrected at 1:07 p.m. on Friday, November 4th, 2011. The article originally incorrectly stated that the Tuskegee Study was conducted in Mississippi, but was conducted in Alabama.

People who participate in clinical trials take the enormous step of volunteering to test a product that may be useful and, sometimes, life-saving if it turns out to be effective. They play an irreplaceable role in research to prevent, treat, and sometimes cure illness – as well as to find other ways to improve people’s health and lives.

Trial participants make a profoundly personal contribution and accept potential medical, social, and personal risks on behalf of others. An ethical trial is one that eliminates or minimizes participants’ risks as much as possible, invests in making sure that participants understand clearly what they are volunteering for, and protects their rights at every step.

For example, without clinical trials, we would not have seen recent advances in antiretroviral drugs to treat HIV, long-acting contraceptive choices that allow women greater control over their use, or microbicides that may be able to protect women from HIV.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The United States government has rules to protect people who participate in federally-funded biomedical and behavioral research. The rules vary depending on which agency is supporting the research, but they all share a starting point known as the Common Rule, a set of regulations for all federally-funded research involving human participants, whether it is conducted inside or outside the U.S.

But those rules have not always been in place, and there are some shameful chapters in the history of medical research supported by the United States that include violations of the most basic standards of ethical behavior.  This history has left some people deeply suspicious of clinical trials and the motives of those who conduct them. Many explain their suspicion with one word: “Tuskegee.”

Conducted in Alabama between 1932 and 1972 by white researchers, the Tuskegee syphilis study enrolled African American farmers with syphilis, many of who could not read. The researchers told them that they would receive treatment for “bad blood” (a general expression people used to cover a range of conditions from anemia to sexually transmitted infections). What the researchers actually did, however, was observe what happened in the men’s bodies as their untreated syphilis progressed.

In 1947, penicillin was recognized as the best treatment for syphilis but the researchers did not relay this news to the trial participants. Instead, they continued the trial and deliberately kept participants from receiving treatment. Advocates finally succeeded in stopping the trial 25 years later by capturing media attention, and a subsequent Congressional advisory panel concluded that the Tuskegee Study was “ethically unjustified.” The advocates then filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the study participants and their families. In 1974, a $10 million out-of-court settlement was reached that ultimately required the U.S. government to provide lifetime medical and health benefits and burial services to all living participants of the trial, as well as their wives, widows and offspring.

To prevent future abuses, Congress passed the National Research Act in 1974, creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.  The Commission developed a set of basic principles outlining what constituted ethical medical research and the regulations created to enforce these, in turn, became known as the Common Rule.  By 1991, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and 14 other federal agencies had adopted the Common Rule.

The protections now required seem so obvious that it is hard to believe that they were not uniformly applied until 30 years ago.  Two examples of protections established following the Tuskegee abuse are:

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) which review and approve a clinical trial’s protocol (describing every step to be taken in the trial) before it can begin. They are made up of researchers, usually at least one lawyer and one ethics expert, and a few people who are knowledgeable about the communities from which trial participants will be recruited. In the US, the medical institutions and universities engaged in research set up these Boards. At least one Board member on each IRB, however, must be someone who does not work for the institution whose trials are being reviewed. These boards are called Research Ethics Committees [RECs] in most other countries.

Informed Consent: Participants must give their voluntary informed consent before they can participate in a study. To do this, they must show that they understand what the trial is designed to do and how it works. Every step of the trial has to be explained in the language the participant is most comfortable using. Pictures and flip charts can be used to help participants who do not read well. This information must be provided multiple times, in conversations that happen on separate days.  This gives people time to think about what they have heard and talk with friends or family before deciding whether to volunteer. Trial counselors must also review the informed consent information periodically with participants when they come in for check ups, reminding them that they have the rights to privacy, full confidentiality and to drop out of the study at any time without giving a reason, if they wish to do so.

But while the regulations created in the wake of Tuskegee were a vitally important step forward for medical research ethics, the landscape of research and clinical trials has changed since 1991 and the Common Rule is overdue for an update. The number of trials being conducted has expanded enormously, creating a greater workload for IRBs. The nature of the research has also changed in some important ways.  In 1991, most U.S.-funded trials took place at a single site (in one city or at one research institution). Now, many trials have multiple sites throughout the United States and, increasingly, around the world. Total public and private spending on health-related research has tripled since 1990, feeding the emergence of an industrial sector comprised of businesses that specialize in the recruitment of research participants, coordination of multi-site trials, and data analysis, as well as for-profit Contract Research Organizations (CROs) that will conduct drug company trials from beginning to end. 

Ensuring participants’ privacy rights is more complex now than when the Common Rule was drafted. Today, rules are needed to protect records and databases that are managed and stored electronically and that contain more detailed information, including genetic data, than could be collected in 1991.  Consent forms have also become increasingly long and legalistic making it all the more challenging to render them fully comprehensible to people with no medical or legal training.

Advocacy pressure has developed to update the Common Rule regulations to deal with these current realities, and DHHS has proposed several revisions that would modernize it.  These updates would mandate data security standards, designate lead-IRBs for multi-site clinical trials so that individual IRBs don’t have to duplicate work, and prescribe the appropriate content, length, format, and literacy level for consent forms – to make sure that they are as understandable as possible to trial participants. 

DHHS posted its proposed revisions to the Common Rule for public review and comment in July of this year. Civil society, research and corporate entities were invited to submit comments by October 26, and hundreds of groups responded, ranging from women’s advocacy groups such as the National Women’s Health Network, the National Research Center for Women and Families, and Breast Cancer Action to Stanford University to drug companies such as Pfizer to the National Association of Children’s Hospitals.

This process provided the opportunity for advocates and others to consider and articulate the progress that has been made in our understanding of clinical trial ethics, and what additional improvements need to be made.

When considering improvements to protections for people participating in research, there is much to be learned from the work of women’s health advocates, many of them based in Africa, who have been actively involved in reviewing clinical trial ethics and advocating for change during this 30 year span. Nowhere is this more evident than in clinical trials of HIV treatment and prevention methods. Gaps remain, but there have been significant advances in research practices, especially regarding treatment of women participants, thanks to work done by the Gender AIDS Forum, the Treatment Action Campaign, the International Coalition of Women Living with HIV/AIDS, the Global Campaign for Microbicides (GCM) and others.

Sexual and reproductive health needs of women trial participants 

The most progress in addressing the sexual and reproductive health needs of trial participants has been made among research entities testing microbicides because the provision of counseling and safe, appropriate contraception to women enrolling in microbicide trials has been shown to help with participant recruitment and retention. Microbicides are products designed to be inserted vaginally or rectally to reduce the risk of HIV transmission if a condom is not being used during sex.

Not only does women’s desire for these services encourage them to join a trial, but access to acceptable and effective contraception helps to reduce the number of participants dropping out of trials due to unintended pregnancy. Advocates have pressed for a woman-responsive approach to care and services provided at microbicide trial sites that would include:

  • Free access to a range of non-condom contraceptive options and counseling on their various advantages and disadvantages, in addition to risk reduction counseling that stresses the importance of male and female condoms for HIV prevention;
  • Access by supported referral to pregnancy care for participants who conceive;
  • Access by supported referral to safe abortion, when requested, or to safe post-abortion care in countries where legal abortion is inaccessible;
  • Screening for cervical cancer and access to care for cervical dysplasia;
  • Counselors competent to handle gender-based violence issues and prepared to link participants with psychosocial services as needed.

A 2008 survey conducted by the GCM indicated that, out of six of the trial sites visited in four African countries, all provided male condoms, most provided female condoms, most provided contraception on site (although a few referred women to other providers for it), and provided pregnancy testing and referrals for ante-natal care.  None, however, provided emergency contraception or full information accessing pregnancy termination, the risks of unsafe abortion, or access to post-abortion care.   

On-going care for people who become HIV positive during an HIV prevention trial 

In 2004 and 2005, two HIV prevention trials were halted by government order in both Cambodia and Cameroon because of controversy over several issues, chief among them the fact that the research sponsors had not made a commitment to ensuring participants would receive on-going anti-retroviral treatment (ART) if they acquired HIV during the trial. 

As a result of this upheaval and cancellation of the trails, a political consensus has emerged that trial participants have a right to on-going access to treatment if they become HIV positive during the trial. Trial sponsors and governments still struggle with the logistics of implementing this commitment but the question of whether publicly-funded HIV prevention trials will take steps to assure it is no longer debated.

Earlier implementation of Data Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs)

A DSMB is a board of independent experts (not involved in running the trial) that carefully examines the trial data while the trial is going on. No research staff can look at the data until the trial is completed. But the external DSMB does “spot checks” so a trial can potentially be stopped if it looks as though:

1. the test product is definitely effective;

2. the test product may be causing harm;

3. the trial can no longer answer the original questions it was designed to answer.

A microbicide trial of a candidate product called Cellulose Sulfate, for example, was stopped when the DSMB saw data suggesting the use of the product might slightly increase women’s risk of contracting HIV.  

The Women’s Health Initiative – a research program evaluating long-term use of hormone therapy – had to stop one of its trials when the DSMB saw data showing that women taking the hormone pills had an increased risk of heart disease and breast cancer compared to women taking the placebo, or sugar, pills.

The National Institutes of Health in the US and the Medical Research Council in the UK first used DSMBs in the 1960s.  At that time, however, they were not generally convened until after the trial was already well underway. In 1988[1], advocates began to call for the establishment of DSMBs before the start of a trial, to help assure maximum safety.

Maintaining and building on the gains

These gains must be monitored and reinforced so that they do not slip away as economic pressures on research institutions lead them to scale back trial budgets.  And there are gaps that remain to be addressed. Some of these gaps have been filled in the following ways.

Expanding community involvement and consultation and the development of community advisory boards (CABs)

Over the last two decades, HIV-focused researchers have come to realize that involving people from the communities where they are conducting clinical trials is not only the right thing to do but also smart.  After seeing trials become embroiled in controversy and even closed when they lacked community support, most HIV prevention trials have adopted practices to ensure that that these stakeholders have regular opportunities to give input and to learn about how the trial works and how it is progressing.  They hire community liaisons as part of their trial staff, hold community consultations and convene on-going community advisory boards (CABS). 

Doing this successfully requires that researchers invest in building “research literacy” among interested community members, to help people with no science training and, often, little formal education clearly understand what the trial is doing and why it operates as it does.  This understanding enables community members to provide well-informed recommendations and levels the playing field for meaningful discussions and debates about aspects of the trials that stakeholders may feel should be changed.

Unfortunately, this investment in full and robust community involvement –and in the staff who make it happen – are among the first things to go when research funding is reduced.  Advocates now face the challenge of building enough political support for community involvement programs to protect them from staff and funding cut-backs.

Providing the best available prevention package

Currently, HIV prevention trials routinely provide participants with condoms (although not all trials provide female as well as male condoms).  They also provide STI diagnosis and treatment and risk reduction counseling in the participant’s language.

In 2007, UNAIDS issued guidance that included language specifying that trial participants should receive counseling and access to all “state-of-the-art” HIV risk reduction. There is ongoing debate, however, about how state of the art is defined.  Some trials offer circumcision to uncircumcised male participants, and some people argue that it should be offered in all trials.  Advocates have also argued that gender-based violence and substance abuse (including alcohol) are factors demonstrably associated with heightened HIV risk and that, therefore, services to address these should also be available to all HIV prevention trial participants.  In 2005, an HIV vaccine trial called AIDSVAX declined to provide 1600 injection drug using participants with clean injecting equipment, despite strong evidence that doing so would reduce their HIV risk. 

Conclusions

The landscape of research and clinical trials has changed dramatically since 1991, not only in technical ways, but also – at least in HIV prevention research — in terms of how research entities relate to trial participants and communities where they are working. 

Advances in ethical reasoning, community and international pressure, and sometimes sheer pragmatism, have changed research norms for that field.  As a result, clinical trial participation is now less risky, fairer and more beneficial to trial participants. 

The updating of the Common Rule offered advocates an opportunity and a challenge – a chance to get the new practices codified to the greatest extent possible, protecting them against roll backs in the current climate of economic cut-backs and extending them to other areas of research.  In addition to the ethical arguments that advocates have been making, it is important to emphasize that where these practices have been adopted:

  • Trials are less likely to be shut down due to community opposition,
  • Trial participants are more likely to be candid with researchers about their use of the test product, preferences, and behaviors (thus generating more accurate data), and
  • Communities may be more inclined to host, and benefit from, future trials. 

Thus, their adoption is both the ethical and the smart thing to do. More and better tools to protect women’s sexual and reproductive health cannot be developed without ongoing clinical research. Even the best researchers cannot conduct effective trials without community support and motivated participants who adhere to trial protocols. Such individual and collective participation is generated by trials that actively display their commitment to doing ethical research that respects and benefits trial communities, as well as the wider world. 


[1] “Data Monitoring in Clinical Trials A Case Studies Approach”, by DeMets, Furberg, and Friedman; published by Springer, 2006