Studies of the human microbiome have revealed that even healthy individuals differ remarkably in the microbes that occupy habitats such as the gut, skin, and vagina. Much of this diversity remains unexplained, although diet, environment, host genetics, and early microbial exposure have all been implicated. Accordingly, to characterize the ecology of human-associated microbial communities, the Human Microbiome Project has analyzed the largest cohort and set of distinct, clinically relevant body habitats to date. We found the diversity and abundance of each habitat’s signature microbes to vary widely even among healthy subjects, with strong niche specialization both within and among individuals. The project encountered an estimated 81–99% of the genera, enzyme families, and community configurations occupied by the healthy Western microbiome. Metagenomic carriage of metabolic pathways was stable among individuals despite variation in community structure, and ethnic/racial background proved to be one of the strongest associations of both pathways and microbes with clinical metadata. These results thus delineate the range of structural and functional configurations normal in the microbial communities of a healthy population, enabling future characterization of the epidemiology, ecology, and translational applications of the human microbiome.

A variety of microbial communities and their genes (microbiome) exist throughout the human body, playing fundamental roles in human health and disease. The NIH funded Human Microbiome Project (HMP) Consortium has established a population-scale framework which catalyzed significant development of metagenomic protocols resulting in a broad range of quality-controlled resources and data including standardized methods for creating, processing and interpreting distinct types of high-throughput metagenomic data available to the scientific community. Here we present resources from a population of 242 healthy adults sampled at 15 to 18 body sites up to three times, which to date, have generated 5,177 microbial taxonomic profiles from 16S rRNA genes and over 3.5 Tb of metagenomic sequence. In parallel, approximately 800 human-associated reference genomes have been sequenced. Collectively, these data represent the largest resource to date describing the abundance and variety of the human microbiome, while providing a platform for current and future studies.

Background To promote justice in research practice and rectify health disparities, greater diversity in research participation is needed. Lack of trust in medical research is one of the most significant obstacles to research participation. Multiple variables have been identified as factors associated with research participant trust/mistrust. A conceptual model that provides meaningful insight into the interplay of factors impacting trust may promote more ethical research practice and provide an enhanced, actionable understanding of participant mistrust. Methods A structured survey was developed to capture attitudes towards research conducted in emergency situations; this paper focuses on items designed to assess respondents’ level of trust or mistrust in medical research in general. Community-based interviews were conducted in English or Spanish with 355 New York City residents (white 42%, African American 29%, Latino 22%). Results Generally favorable attitudes towards research were expressed by a majority (85.3%), but many respondents expressed mistrust. Factor analysis yielded four specific domains of trust/mistrust, each of which was associated with different demographic variables: General Trustworthiness (older age, not disabled); Perceptions of Discrimination (African American, Latino, Spanish language preference); Perceptions of Deception (prior research experience, African American); and Perceptions of Exploitation (less education). Conclusions The four domains identified in the analysis provide a framework for understanding specific areas of research trust/mistrust amongst disparate study populations. This model offers a conceptual basis for the design of tailored interventions that target specific groups to promote trust of individual researchers and research institutions as well as to facilitate broader research participation.

Objectives Most critically ill adults have impaired decision-making capacity and are unable to consent to research. Yet, little is known about how Institutional Review Boards interpret the Common Rule’s call for safeguards in research involving incapacitated adults. We aimed to examine Institutional Review Board practices on surrogate consent and other safeguards to protect incapacitated adults in research. Design, Settings, and Participants A cross-sectional survey of 104 Institutional Review Boards from a random sample of U.S. institutions engaged in adult human subject research (response rate, 68%) in 2007 and 2008. Interventions None. Measurements Institutional Review Board acceptance of surrogate consent, research risks, and other safeguards in research involving incapacitated adults. Main Results Institutional Review Boards reported that, in the previous year, they sometimes (49%), frequently (33%), or very frequently (2%) reviewed studies involving patients in the intensive care unit. Six Institutional Review Boards (6%) do not accept surrogate consent for research from any persons, and 22% of Institutional Review Boards accept only an authorized proxy, spouse, or parent as surrogates, excluding adult children and other family. Institutional Review Boards vary in their limits on research risks in studies involving incapacitated adults: 15% disallow any research regardless of risk in studies without direct benefit, whereas 39% allow only minimal risks. When there was potential benefit, fewer Institutional Review Boards limit the risk at minimal (11%; p < .001). Even in populations at high risk for impaired decision making, many Institutional Review Boards rarely or never required procedures to determine capacity (13%–21%). Institutional Review Boards also varied in their use of independent monitors, research proxies, and advanced research directives. Conclusions Much variability exists in Institutional Review Board surrogate consent practices and limits on risks in studies involving incapacitated adults. This variability may have adverse consequences for needed research involving incapacitated adults. Clarification of current regulations is needed to provide guidance.

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.