Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Declaration of Helsinki (DoH) was adopted by the World Medical Association (WMA) in 1964, as a statement of ethical principles, to provide guidance to physicians and other participants in medical research involving human subjects. Having undergone several amendments, the most recent version was approved on 18 October 2008, by the WMA General Assembly at Seoul, South Korea, replacing all previous versions. This version highlights issues such as, participant safety, the need to include participants from otherwise underrepresented groups, clinical trial registration, post-study access, usage of data and human tissues, compensating participants with research-related injury, and usage of placebo. In this article, we discuss the major aspects of the 2008 version, including the impact of this version on all stakeholders in research, including, investigators, ethics committee members, sponsors, authors, editors, and reviewers.

Background In October 2013, the Declaration of Helsinki was revised a seventh time in its 50 year history. While it is the most widely accepted set of ethical principles for the protection of patients participating in medical research, the Declaration of Helsinki has also been subject of constant controversy. In particular, its paragraph on the use of placebo controls in clinical trials divides the research community into active-control and placebo orthodox proponents, both continuously demanding revisions of the Declaration of Helsinki in favour of their position. The goal of the present project is to compare the mainly theoretical controversy with regulatory implementation. Methods We distributed a questionnaire to national drug regulatory authorities from different countries to collect information on the authorities’ respective approaches to interpretation and implementation of the Declarations’ placebo paragraph in the conduct of medical research. Results Our findings suggest that the majority of drug regulatory authorities have established a practice of a middle ground, allowing placebo controls in some instances. Various interpretations of “serious harm” and “methodological reasons” are proposed as well as safeguards to avoid abuse of the option to use placebo-controls. Conclusion Leaving the placebo paragraph open to various interpretation is a result of the Declaration of Helsinki’s character as a guidance document. With the current version controversy will continue. The Declaration should be continued to be strengthened to enforce the appreciation of conducting medical research with the highest ethical standard.

Background Stakeholders in medical research have roles in ensuring that research participants are protected. Medical journals play gatekeeping roles in the responsible conduct of research. They help guard against the publication of findings of unethical research, such as those with compromised participant welfare. Nigerian medical journals are being created to support the growing number of research enterprises. In this study, we aimed to determine the compliance of Nigerian medical journals with guidelines on research participant protection. Methods This was a descriptive cross-sectional study of Nigerian medical journals and articles. We used a checklist to obtain information on journal characteristics and the presence of recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) on the protection of research participants in the journal instructions to authors and articles. The data were analysed via IBM SPSS version 23. Results We studied 40 journals and 350 journal articles. Thirty-one (77.5%) journals required ethical approval and the Declaration of Helsinki statement in their instructions to the authors, while informed consent was present in 26 (65.0%) journals; 6 (15.0%) journals had no participant protection guidelines. Forty-one (11.7%) articles complied with all three recommendations on research participant protection, whereas 60 (17.1%) articles did not. Ethical approval was most common in 268 (76.6%) articles, whereas it was least common in statements on the Declaration of Helsinki in 50 (14.3%) articles. The presence of participant protection recommendations in instructions to authors was not associated with compliance with these recommendations in published articles ( p  > 0.05). Conclusion Although there is fairly good compliance of Nigerian medical journals with research participant protection recommendations, there are still gaps, which highlight the need for remedial measures.

In this paper, we argue that the professional engineering institutions ought to develop a Declaration of Climate Action. Climate change is a serious global problem, and the majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from industries that are enabled by engineers and represented by the engineering professional institutions. If the professional institutions take seriously the claim that a profession should be self-regulating, with codes of ethics that go beyond mere obedience to the law, and if they take their own ethical codes seriously, recognising their responsibility to the public and to future generations (and also recognising a duty of “responsible leadership”), the professional institutions ought to develop a declaration for engineers, addressing climate change. Our argument here is largely inspired by the history of the Declaration of Helsinki. The Declaration of Helsinki was created by the medical profession for the profession, and it held physicians to a higher standard of ethical conduct than was found in the legal framework of individual countries. Although it was not originally a legal document, the influence of the Declaration can be seen in the fact that it is now enshrined in law in a number of different countries. Thus, we argue that the engineering profession could, and should, play a significant role in the abatement of climate change by making changes within the profession. If the engineering profession sets strict standards for professional engineers, with sanctions for those who refuse to comply, this could have a significant impact in relation to our efforts to develop a coordinated response to climate change.

The World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki is in the process of being revised. The following amendments are recommended to be incorporated in pursuit of the common goal of promoting health for all. 1. Data-driven research that facilitates broad informed consent and dynamic consent, assuring participant’s rights, and the sharing of individual participant data (IPD) and research results to promote open science and generate social value. 2. Risk minimisation in a placebo-controlled study and post-trial access to the best-proven interventions for all who need them. 3. A future-oriented research framework for co-creation with all the relevant stakeholders.

Aim To determine the level of evidence for innovative high-risk medical devices at market entry. Methods We reviewed all Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI) assessor reports on novel implants or invasive medical devices (n = 18, Class IIb-III) available between 2018 to mid-2019 on applications submitted for inclusion on their reimbursement list. We also conducted a review of the literature on evidence gaps and an analysis of relevant legal and ethical frameworks within the European context. Findings Conformity assessment of medical devices is based on performance, safety, and an acceptable risk-benefit balance. Information submitted for obtaining CE marking is confidential and legally protected, limiting access to clinical evidence. Seven out of the 18 RIZIV-INAMI assessor reports (39%) included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) using the novel device, whilst 2 applications (11%) referred to an RCT that used a different device. The population included was inappropriate or unclear for 3 devices (17%). Only half of the applications presented evidence on quality of life or functioning and 2 (11%) presented overall survival data. Four applications (22%) included no data beyond twelve months. The findings from the literature demonstrated similar problems with the study design and the clinical evidence. Discussion and conclusions CE marking does not indicate that a device is effective, only that it complies with the law. The lack of transparency hampers evidence-based decision making. Despite greater emphasis on clinical benefit for the patient, the provisions of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) are not yet fully aligned with international ethical standards for clinical research. The MDR fails to address key issues, such as the lack of access to data submitted for CE marking and a failure to require evidence of clinical effectiveness. Indeed, a first report shows no improvement in the clinical evidence for implantable devices generated under the MDR. Thus, patients may continue to be exposed to ineffective or unsafe novel devices. The Health Technology Assessment Regulation plans for Joint Scientific Consultations for specific high-risk devices before companies begin their pivotal clinical investigations. The demanded comparative evidence should facilitate payer decisions. Nevertheless, there is also a need for legislation requiring comparative RCTs assessing patient-relevant outcomes for high-risk devices to ensure implementation, including development and implementation of common specifications for study designs.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.579714.].

This paper reflects on some amendments to the Declaration of Helsinki in 2008. It focuses on former paragraphs 5 (now 6) and 19 (now 17). Paragraph 5 suggested that the wellbeing of research participants should take precedence over the interests of science and society. Paragraph 6 now proposes that it should take precedence over all other interests. Paragraph 19, and the new paragraph 17, suggest that research involving the members of a disadvantaged population is only justified if the clinical trial is likely to benefit them. In both cases, the recommendation is that the interests of the research subjects should prevail over the interests of third parties. This paper assesses the plausibility of these statements, and in order to do so, considers debates on the moral duty to participate in biomedical research. It is argued that, even if seen in the context of the Declaration as a whole, the statements contained in these paragraphs risk offering a misleading portrait of science and risk eroding some of the ethical principles that should form the basis of a satisfactory shared life, such as altruism and responsibility for our fellows.

The vulnerability of research participants is a critical topic for the 2024 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, with the proposal to include “social value. ” However, this proposal has been withdrawn and the relationship between the two concepts has not been clarified. This paper attempts to clarify: (1) the recent reform for the ethical inclusion of vulnerable study participants to promote diversity; (2) the social value, prerequisite for everyone, especially for those who are vulnerable and the most in need; (3) the requirements for promoting the inclusion of vulnerable participants, in particular the review of the norms for placebo-controlled trials and post-trial access; (4) finally, the direction of research ethics reform to achieve social value and equitable global health.