Friday, December 22, 2006
Strengthening Local Review of Research in Africa:Is the IRB Model Relevant?
BY CARL H. COLEMAN AND MARIE-CHARLOTTE BOUËSSEAU

The amount of medical research in Africa is growing rapidly, but many of these countries lack adequate mechanisms exist to protect the interests of prospective research participants and their communities. As the National Bioethics Advisory Commission observed in 2001, there are “legitimate reasons to question the capacity of host countries to support and conduct prior ethics review” of collaborative research, including limited resources, lack of experience and expertise, and potential conflicts of interest. Other commentators have echoed these concerns, including the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in a report released last year. Strengthening the ethics review capacity of low and middle-income countries is therefore an important goal of international bioethics and human rights.

To that end, the European Commission's Science and Society program recently funded an initiative by fifteen African countries called Networking for Ethics on Biomedical Research in Africa. The goal of the NEBRA project was to survey the participating countries' existing systems for ethics review of research involving human participants and develop a strategy for strengthening it. We participated in this project on behalf of the Ethics, Trade, Human Rights and Health Law department of the World Health Organization, which was a member of the NEBRA steering committee. In reviewing the experiences of these countries, it became clear to us that attempting to replicate American-style institutional review boards as the primary mechanism for ethics oversight of research would do little to serve African peoples’ most pressing needs.

First, the structure of the American IRB system is a poor fit for African countries. The IRB system is premised on the importance of “local” review of research (i.e., review in the institution in which the research will take place), as well as a separation between IRBs and the agencies that regulate them. In many African countries, however, institutional-level committees that exist independently of regulatory authorities may lack sufficient legitimacy to be effective. In addition, they may find it difficult to reject research protocols, or to insist on substantial changes that might lead sponsors to reconsider working with the institution, if foreign research is an institution's primary means of financial support. By contrast, a centralized committee housed within a government agency may be in a better position to take strong positions and ensure that those decisions are respected. In addition, creating a single centralized committee is likely to be simpler, and less costly, than attempting to create separate committees at every research institution in the country.

Second, the most critical ethical issues related to medical research in Africa are not the protocol-specific issues that IRBs are designed to address. When an IRB in the United States receives a protocol, its job is to determine whether the proposed study complies with general ethical principles and regulatory requirements, not to consider whether a different study, perhaps addressing an entirely different problem, might be a better use of limited human resources or offer a better justification for exposing participants to risk. Questions about the prioritization of different types of medical research are generally left to other entities, such as funders or medical journal editors. In many developing countries, however, no one is considering big-picture questions about the relative importance of different types of medical research. Research “agendas” are often dictated solely by the market-driven priorities of foreign research sponsors, rather than by any proactive decisions by the countries themselves. In this context, thinking about the prioritization of limited research resources, and ensuring that research addresses the most pressing health needs of the country’s population, is one of the most important ethical issues to be considered.

A similar point applies to the way research is funded. In the United States, IRBs are generally not responsible for reviewing the terms of research funding. They may become interested in funding arrangements when there are concerns about conflicts of interest, or when funders seek to restrict researchers’ freedom to publish the results of a study, but their role is not to ask whether the overall arrangement is a “good deal” for the institution or the larger community in which the research will be conducted. For African countries, however, evaluating the obligations that funders assume in exchange for their access to research participants is at least as important as considering a study’s potential to contribute to generalizable knowledge. Indeed, in countries that have historically lacked access to most of the benefits of scientific progress, the potential for producing generalizable knowledge will rarely, if ever, be a sufficient justification for exposing human participants to the risks of research. An effective ethics review process should therefore ensure that sponsors commit to providing tangible benefits to study participants and the community in which the research is conducted. It should also include mechanisms to ensure that those commitments are actually met.

Finally, while any comprehensive ethics review process must address certain internationally accepted ethical principles (such as that participation be voluntary), the way those principles are applied in the American regulatory system will not always work in African countries. For example, American regulations emphasize the importance of obtaining the individual informed consent of prospective research participants, usually in writing. In African countries, however, it may be inappropriate to design a consent process that focuses on individuals in isolation from their families and communities, and the emphasis on written consent forms may need to be reconsidered. Similarly, as the European Group on Ethics in Science and the New Technologies observed, “different cultures may have different views regarding privacy and personal data.”

As the amount of human research grows in African countries, building these countries’ capacity for ensuring the ethical acceptability of research is undeniably important. However, what constitutes an effective ethics review system will necessarily vary from country to country. As Alejo Carpentier described in his novel El Siglo de las Luces, the French Declaration of Human Rights and the guillotine arrived in Antilles on the same boat. As the globalization of research ethics continues, countries will have to decide which aspects of foreign systems are really worth copying.

The named authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in these comments.

Comment on this essay.

Comments are sent to the forum moderator. Select responses may be posted.

A Phony 'War on Science'
Michael Gerson, Washington Post
“In their talk of a Republican war on science, liberals may be blinding themselves to a very different kind of modern war in which their own ideals are deeply implicated: a war on equality.”

It’s Not Immoral to Want to be Immortal
Arthur Caplan, MSNBC
“Despite a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing, it is not obvious that wanting to live a lot longer is evil or immoral.”

Science Is Leading Us to More Answers, but It's Also Misleading Us
David A. Shaywitz, Washington Post
“Consumers of scientific information must balance the hope we place in global biology with the skepticism this field has surely earned.”

Taking the Scary out of Breast Cancer Stats
Carol Tavris and Avrum Bluming, LA Times
“The media understand how deeply women fear breast cancer, and the result is that every study that seems to find a link between some new risk factor and the disease makes headlines everywhere.”

Dollars to Doughnuts Diagnosis
Albert Fuchs, LA Times
“Insurance doesn't make routine care affordable; it makes it more expensive by adding a middleman.”

Tainted Medicine
Jerome P. Kassirer, LA Times
“Disclosure of financial ties may give a scientist or researcher a clean conscience, but that doesn't erase the possibility of a conflict.”

Children's health can't be left to faith alone
Arthur Caplan, MSNBC
“Parents do not have the right to watch a child wither away while they pray.”

Transplant List Numbers Raise Doubts
Arthur Caplan, MSNBC
“The American people have a right to expect absolute honesty about the number of people waiting for a transplant at any time.”

An Epidemic No One Wants to Talk About
Robert E. Fullilove et al., Washington Post
“Simply put, we will never rid the United States of HIV and other STDs if our only weapon is medical treatment.”

Making Cells Like Computers
Erik Parens, Boston Globe
“Conceivably, we are on the verge of installing synthetic genomes in bacterial cells to create products we want. But we are still a long, long way from doing what most people mean by ‘synthesizing life.’”

Miracle Workers?
David Rieff, New York Times Magazine
“Even today, the oldest of all relations between patient and physician — that of supplicant to shaman — continues to exert its authority.”

Overselling Overmedication
Judith Warner, NYTimes.com
“Most of the critics decrying the over-medicalization of the American mind rest their arguments upon the bedrock assumption that people who have nothing wrong with them are being medicated for largely fictitious concerns.”

Ads Spur Urge for Drugs
David Lazarus, LA Times
“DTC advertising has turned prescription drugs into just another gotta-have-it consumer product.”

Food Politics, Half-Baked
James E. McWilliams, New York Times
“Lost in this rhetorical battle was a quiet middle ground where the benefits and drawbacks of genetically engineered crops were responsibly considered.”

Perpetrating the Autism Myth
Benjamin Kruskal and Carole Allen, Boston Globe
“The scientific evidence is clear: neither the MMR vaccine nor thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines has any relationship to autism.”

Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
Verlyn Klinkenborg, New York Times
“The real beneficiaries are the nation’s large meatpacking companies — the kind that would like it best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets.”

Human Embryos Cloned: What Does It Mean?
Art Caplan, MSNBC
“Let's not be frightened by scare tactics into not funding research that may be the key to curing what is currently incurable.”

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Is Bad Policy for Cloned Food
Art Caplan, MSNBC
“All of this fear-mongering about clones has made Americans forget that cloning is nothing more than artificially creating twins.”