Pandemic ethics: the case for risky research

Chappell, Richard Yetter; Singer, Peter

doi:10.1177/1747016120931920

Cited by 30 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More importantly, according to Eyal et al (2020), volunteers can autonomously give their informed consent to take these risks. This aligns with the view of Chappell and Singer (2020: 2), who write:If it is permissible to expose some members of society (e.g. health workers or the economically vulnerable) to a certain level of ex ante risk in order to minimize overall harm from the virus, then it is permissible to expose fully informed volunteers to a comparable level of risk in the context of promising research into the virus.…”

Section: Human Challenge Trials For Covid-19 – An Overview Of the Ethsupporting

confidence: 61%

COVID-19 human challenge trials – what research ethics committees need to consider

Tambornino¹,

Lanzerath

2020

Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To reduce the global burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need to develop a safe vaccine. Vaccine development usually takes many years as it goes through several different phases. To hasten COVID-19 vaccine development, it has been suggested that the final stage could be replaced with a human challenge trial (HCT). Volunteers would be intentionally infected with SARS-CoV-2 to see how the vaccine candidate works. To intentionally infect a healthy human being with a potentially deadly virus is contrary to the highest ethical standards in medical research. This article highlights the benefits and risks of COVID-19 HCTs and summarises what research ethics committees (RECs) need to consider during the ethical assessment of such trials including risk reduction, strict containment measures, specific informed consent measures and avoiding high monetary inducements.

show abstract

Section: Human Challenge Trials For Covid-19 – An Overview Of the Ethsupporting

confidence: 61%

COVID-19 human challenge trials – what research ethics committees need to consider

Tambornino¹,

Lanzerath

2020

Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…at developing COVID-19 vaccines or treatments. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] This position has also been endorsed in a statement by a working group for the WHO. 9 These papers and their conclusions have already received considerable media attention and as is often the case the nuances of the arguments justifying the conclusions have got somewhat lost in that process, as in the quote from a reputable UK newspaper above.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2 to study COVID-19 vaccines and treatments: bioethics in Utopia

Holm

2020

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of papers have appeared recently arguing for the conclusion that it is ethically acceptable to infect healthy volunteers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as part of research projects aimed at developing COVID-19 vaccines or treatments. This position has also been endorsed in a statement by a working group for the WHO. The papers generally argue that controlled human infection (CHI) is ethically acceptable if (1) the risks to participants are low and therefore acceptable, (2) the scientific quality of the research is high, (3) the research has high social value, (4) participants give full informed consent, and (5) there is fair selection of participants. All five conditions are necessary premises in the overall argument that such research is ethically acceptable. The arguments concerning risk and informed consent have already been critically discussed in the literature. This paper therefore looks specifically at the arguments relating to condition 3 ‘high social value’ and condition 5 ‘fair selection of participants’ and shows that whereas they may be valid, they are not sound. It is highly unlikely that the conditions that are necessary for ethical CHI trials to take place will be fulfilled. Most, if not all, CHI trials will thus be well intentioned but unethical.

show abstract

“…According to a principle of “risk parity,”10 if we allow some people to take certain risks to help save lives then we should allow other people to take similar, voluntary risks when there are comparable benefits. Put concretely: altruistic risks allowed in operating rooms (for example, kidney donation) should be allowed in clinical research facilities, such as in challenge trials.…”

Section: Yes—seán O’neill Mcpartlin Josh Morrison Abie Rohrigmentioning

confidence: 99%

Covid-19 vaccines: Should we allow human challenge studies to infect healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2?

McPartlin

Morrison

Rohrig

et al. 2020

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pandemic ethics: the case for risky research

Cited by 30 publications

References 7 publications

COVID-19 human challenge trials – what research ethics committees need to consider

COVID-19 human challenge trials – what research ethics committees need to consider

Controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2 to study COVID-19 vaccines and treatments: bioethics in Utopia

Covid-19 vaccines: Should we allow human challenge studies to infect healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About