All Bookmarks

Global non-communicable Disease: From research to action

Date: Wednesday 25 April 2012
Time: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm
Venue: John Snow, LSHTM, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
Type of event: Symposium

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) is launching its Centre for Global Non-communicable Disease with a one-day Symposium on Wednesday 25th April. This Symposium seeks to build on the momentum from the recent UN High Level Meeting on NCDs.

It is intended that the LSHTM Centre for Global Non-communicable Disease which will act as a reference for people involved in NCD research both inside and outside of the School. The centre will lead to the sharing and dissemination of information, knowledge and expertise, and the development of new research and policy initiatives. The Centre will focus on Low-and-Middle-Income Countries LMICs, but many of the researchers involved are also doing work in High Income Countries (HICs), and one of the aims of the Centre will be to promote collaboration and communication between researchers in LMICs and those in HICs.

To register please visit - http://globalncd.eventbrite.co.uk/

Saved once (save to my bookmarks)
Bookmarked by Dina Bogecho on 28 Feb 2012
0 points

Informed Consent and Cluster-Randomized Trials

Julius Sim and Angus Dawson Informed Consent and Cluster-Randomized Trials. American Journal of Public Health: March 2012, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp. 480-485.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300389

ABSTRACT
We argue that cluster-randomized trials are an important methodology, essential to the evaluation of many public health interventions.

However, in the case of at least some cluster-randomized trials, it is not possible, or is incompatible with the aims of the study, to obtain individual informed consent. This should not necessarily be seen as an impediment to ethical approval, providing that sufficient justification is given for this omission.

We further argue that it should be the institutional review board’s task to evaluate whether the protocol is sufficiently justified to proceed without consent and that this is preferable to any reliance on community consent or other means of proxy consent.

Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300389

Saved once (save to my bookmarks)
Bookmarked by Dina Bogecho on 13 Feb 2012
0 points

Ethical questions around genetic testing

Written by John Donnelly on February 2, 2012

Just 10 years ago, a complete personalized genome test cost $3 billion. Some groups say that this cost could drop to as low as $1000 this year.

With the tests becoming more affordable, and more and more people getting whole genome sequencing tests, a host of related ethical issues are getting more attention, experts told the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues today in San Francisco.

Among them: Who will interpret this genetic data? Is it ethical to allow health care providers to interpret the data without a health systems infrastructure to help them interpret it? What will be the privacy protections to people who have the testing? Are privacy issues around genetic testing any different from other personal health information?

The Commission heard differing views on the thicket of ethical issues surrounding the emerging field.

Click on the link above for the rest of this blog post.

Saved once (save to my bookmarks)
Bookmarked by Dina Bogecho on 9 Feb 2012
0 points

From consent to institutions: Designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks

A new paper on the topic of consent and governance for biobanks. This paper is restricted access and must be purchased from the Social Science & Medicine website.

Social Science & Medicine, Volume 73, Issue 3, August 2011, Pages 367-374.

Abstract:

Biobanks are increasingly hailed as powerful tools to advance health research. The social and ethical challenges associated with the implementation and operation of biobanks are equally well-documented. One of the proposed solutions to these challenges involves trading off a reduction in the specificity of informed consent protocols with an increased emphasis on governance. However, little work has gone into formulating what such governance might look like. In this paper, we suggest four general principles that should inform biobank governance and illustrate the enactment of these principles in a proposed governance model for a particular population-scale biobank, the British Columbia (BC) Generations Project. We begin by outlining four principles that we see as necessary for informing sustainable and effective governance of biobanks: (1) recognition of research participants and publics as a collective body, (2) trustworthiness, (3) adaptive management, and (4) fit between the nature of a particular biobank and the specific structural elements of governance adopted. Using the BC Generations Project as a case study, we then offer as a working model for further discussion the outlines of a proposed governance structure enacting these principles. Ultimately, our goal is to design an adaptive governance approach that can protect participant interests as well as promote effective translational health sciences.

Saved once (save to my bookmarks)
Bookmarked by Dina Bogecho on 4 Aug 2011
0 points

HHS announces proposal to improve rules protecting human research subjects

Changes under consideration would ensure the highest standards of protections for human subjects involved in research, while enhancing effectiveness of oversight

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced today that the federal government is contemplating various ways of enhancing the regulations overseeing research on human subjects. Before making changes to the regulations – which have been in place since 1991and are often referred to as the Common Rule – the government is seeking the public’s input on an array of issues related to the ethics, safety, and oversight of human research. The changes under consideration can be found in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators, published in the July 25 Federal Register. The proposed changes are designed to strengthen protections for human research subjects.

Saved once (save to my bookmarks)
Bookmarked by Dina Bogecho on 1 Aug 2011
0 points