Skip to content

What do human research subjects have the right to know?

An inter­dis­ci­pli­nary group of researchers from around the world con­verged at North­eastern last week to dis­cuss the chal­lenges of and best prac­tices for nav­i­gating the new era for informed con­sent when using humans as research subjects.

Speaking at the Third Annual Work­shop in Applied EthicsRon San­dler, asso­ciate pro­fessor of phi­los­ophy and director of the North­eastern Uni­ver­sity Ethics Insti­tute, noted that fac­tors such as community-​​based research, big data and genomics research, online research, and emer­gency med­i­cine are changing the land­scape of ethics over­sight in research involving human subjects.

“There are a lot of areas of research now where it’s not clear how the stan­dard model of informed con­sent works in those con­texts,” he said.

Research using human sub­jects in America under­went a sig­nif­i­cant ethics over­haul after rev­e­la­tions sur­faced in the mid 1970s that a 40-​​year syphilis study on black men in rural Alabama fol­lowed bla­tantly uneth­ical prac­tices by delib­er­ately failing to treat sick people. The ensuing Bel­mont Report pro­vided guide­lines for researchers and estab­lished Insti­tu­tional Review Boards to ensure research sub­jects are pro­tected and best prac­tices are followed.

But researchers at last week’s work­shop noted that in the near half-​​century that has fol­lowed since the infa­mous Tus­keegee case, research itself has changed, ren­dering the cur­rent eth­ical stan­dards insuf­fi­cient for some studies.

For example, if a patient is uncon­scious when he arrives at the emer­gency depart­ment, he doesn’t have the ability to be informed about a study and can’t give con­sent to par­tic­i­pate. Nev­er­the­less, research in those sit­u­a­tions is needed to improve emer­gency med­i­cine prac­tices in the future.

“Every­body agrees that we need to pro­tect research sub­jects,” San­dler said. “The issue is how we do that effec­tively with all these new areas.”

Hosted by the Ethics Insti­tute and Northeastern’s Social Sci­ence Envi­ron­mental Health Research Insti­tute, the work­shop pro­vided a plat­form for dis­cus­sion of so-​​called “post-​​Belmont ethics.” The institute’s director, Phil Brown, Uni­ver­sity Dis­tin­guished Pro­fessor of Soci­ology and Health Sci­ences,  helped coin that term, which points to the need for an expanded view of informed consent.

Brown uses bio­mon­i­toring and air and dust mon­i­toring to mea­sure per­sonal and house­hold chem­ical expo­sures. Under the cur­rent guide­lines, informed con­sent merely requires his team to inform research sub­jects of the risks and ben­e­fits of par­tic­i­pating in the study and then non-​​coercively gain their con­sent to participate.

But Brown’s par­tic­ular work gen­er­ates sig­nif­i­cant amounts of data on research sub­jects’ per­sonal expo­sure levels. Reporting those levels back to the subject—many of whom con­sider the data to be their “property”—infringes on prac­tices of some IRB’s, which fear the data will scare people.

“We need to sup­port peo­ples’ right to know about the results of the study, not just make sure that they aren’t exploited by the study,” he said.

In nine months, the national Insti­tu­tional Review Board guide­lines will be updated. Many of the par­tic­i­pants at last week’s event, which included staff from the National Insti­tutes of Health, hope the way for­ward will include new eth­ical assur­ances for the changing face of human-​​subjects research.

– By Angela Herring

More Stories

Photo of the Capitol Building at night

High stakes for politics, SCOTUS in 2018

Photo of the crashed truck that was used in the October 31st attack in Manhattan.

Weaponizing Language: How the meaning of “allahu akbar” has been distorted

Northeastern logo

Why I love studying Spanish