1 / 28

Ethics for Addiction Research

Ethics for Addiction Research. Catherine Striley, PhD, MSW, MPE Research Assistant Professor, Dep’t of Psychiatry For 2010 Alcohol Research Training Summer School. Disclosures. Funding from NIDA, Department of Justice, Administration for Children and Families, Pinney and Associates

maine
Download Presentation

Ethics for Addiction Research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ethics for Addiction Research Catherine Striley, PhD, MSW, MPE Research Assistant Professor, Dep’t of Psychiatry For 2010 Alcohol Research Training Summer School

  2. Disclosures • Fundingfrom NIDA, Department of Justice, Administration for Children and Families, Pinney and Associates • No financial interests or consulting to disclose

  3. Ethics of Human Subjects Research • “Without people who are willing to place themselves at risk to advance our knowledge, we will be frozen in our current state of understanding” (Drazen 2006, p.1061).

  4. Human Research Participants:The Four Principles • Respect for Autonomy • Nonmaleficence • Beneficence • Justice Freedom of people to make intentional decisions independent from controlling influences Obligation to do no harm Helping others and promoting good Impartial, equitable and appropriate treatment of all – the fair distribution of benefits, risks and costs

  5. Protecting Participants • Regulatory requirements for additional protections for “vulnerable populations” “place a heavy burden on researchers and IRB members who may want to protect participants (and minimize institutional liability) but may not know how best to accomplish these goals” (Anderson & Dubois 2006) • “Concern” not paternalism (Ruof, 2004)

  6. Integrity or Responsible Conduct: • “Integrity… is the use of honest and verifiable methods in proposing, performing, and evaluating research and reporting research results with particular attention to adherence to rules, regulations, guidelines and commonly accepted professional codes or norms” (ORI RFA-NR-07-001) • Responsible research conduct refers to “intellectual honesty in formulating, conducting and presenting research”  (NIH, 1997).

  7. Standards in Science • “The social mechanisms of science do more than validate what comes to be known as scientific knowledge.  They also help to generate and sustain the body of experimental techniques, social conventions, and other “methods” that scientists use in doing and reporting research.  Some of these methods are permanent features of science; others evolve over time or vary from discipline to discipline.  Because they reflect socially accepted standards in science, their application is a key element of responsible scientific practice.” On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1995, p. 4

  8. Definition of Research Misconduct Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. (42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A and Part 93). (a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.(b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.(d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

  9. Nine Core Areas of RCR Education (ORI) for all • Collaborative science • Conflicts of interest • Data management • Mentor-trainee responsibilities • Peer review • Publication practices/authorship • Research misconduct • Use of animal subjects • Use of human subjects

  10. Rates of Questionable Research Conduct • Fanelli, 2007 Meta-analysis of 21 studies • Separated out plagiarism from misconduct (fraud,fabrication) • 1.97% of scientists admitted fabrication, falsification or other modification of data • 33.7% admitted questionable conduct • Believed that 14% of colleagues committed misconduct, 72% questionable conduct • Conservative estimates

  11. Questionable Research Practices • Questionable Research Practices don’t reach the level of misconduct • Past three years behavior • Martinson, Anderson and DeVries. Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 2005; 435(9): 737-8

  12. Anyone can commit misconduct • Field has moved from an emphasis on the pathological to the “normal” scientist committing questionable acts of conduct Chart from Dr. N. Steneck, 7/24/06 presentation for Mentoring conference

  13. Rates of Misconduct • About 1 in 2 scientists report knowing of or witnessing some misconduct in science, up to 25% included fraud or fabrication (Ranstam2000; Geggie 2001) Striley 10/08

  14. Paul Kornak Case Research coordinator sentenced to 6 years in federal prison for “criminally negligent homicide” Mr. Kornak also must pay over $600,000 in restitution and was debarred from receipt of federal funds for life • He enrolled people in clinical trials • who should have been ineligible • using fraudulent lab work • Posed as a Dr. • One participant had impaired kidney and liver function, and died as a direct result of the study medication when he should have been excluded. • Stratton Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albany, where he worked, is now under investigation

  15. Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk: Hope of World to Suspended Prison Term 2004: Science article 2005: Science article 2004: Nature alleges unethical ooctye donation Oct. 26 2009 WooSuk Hwang receives 2 year suspended prison sentence for embezzlement and bioethics law violations Trial lasted 40 months!

  16. More from the News… • Fabrication • “A prominent Massachusetts anesthesiologist allegedly fabricated 21 medical studies that claimed to show benefits from painkillers like Vioxx and Celebrex, according to the hospital where he worked.” • “Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass., said that its former chief of acute pain, Scott S. Reuben, had faked data used in the studies, which were published in several anesthesiology journals between 1996 and 2008.”

  17. Our Job 1: Ensure the rigor of the science • Participants put themselves at risk assuming that society, if not they themselves, will benefit • If the science is not rigorous, no one will benefit • The science will then have nothing but risk for the participants and is not ethical

  18. Our Job 2: Protect those who volunteer • Regulatory requirements for additional protections for “vulnerable populations” “place a heavy burden on researchers and IRB members who may want to protect participants (and minimize institutional liability) but may not know how best to accomplish these goals” (Anderson & Dubois 2006) • “Concern” not paternalism (Ruof, 2004)

  19. 1928: PHS Syphilis Prevalence study (n < 2000) African-Americans in Mississippi 25% positive 1929 Aggressive treatment approach initiated with Mercury and Bismith. Cure rate is less than 30 percent, treatment requires months and side effects are toxic, sometimes fatal. 1929 Oslo Study retrospective study of white men w/ untreated syphilis Found both cardiovascular damage and neurological damage 1932 Tuskegee begins, PI Dr. Taliaferro Clark, PHS Prospective study of living patients n=399 African-American men, n-201 control No money for treatment due to stockmarket crash Tuskegee Study Facts 1 Centers for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/tuskegee/time.htm The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: A Hard Lesson Learned Jones, J. Bad Blood: The Tuskegee syphilis experiment: A tragedy of race and medicine. NY: The Free Press, 1981 2

  20. Subjects were poor, illiterate, rural, African American men Incentives Free physical exams Free transportation by Nurse Rivers Hot meals on exam days Free treatment for minor ailments Burial stipends No informed consent Tuskegee Facts 2 Centers for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/tuskegee/time.htm The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: A Hard Lesson Learned Jones, J. Bad Blood: The Tuskegee syphilis experiment: A tragedy of race and medicine. NY: The Free Press, 1981 2

  21. Tuskegee Facts 3 • 1936 Paper published about study with wide criticism following • Decision made to continue to study men until death • 1945 Penicillin widely used to treat syphilis • From 1947 to 1962 127 Black medical students rotate through study

  22. Tuskegee Case • Examine using “So Far No Objections” framework • developed by James Dubois, PhD, DSc, Department Chair and Center Director, Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University • S – Stakeholders – competing interests • F – Facts – known and unknown • N – Norms – what is relevant, conflicting? • O – Options – possible? attractive? (Available at: www.emhr.net “A Framework for Analyzing Ethics Cases”)

  23. Problems • Paternalistic • Bad blood was assumed to be the right term, but subjects didn’t know this term • Participants didn’t know what they had or what was being done to them • Treatment was available • Participants were denied treatment by other providers because they were in the study • There was no need for the science • The course of untreated syphilis was known

  24. Tuskegee: Resolution • 1968 Peter Buxtun and others raise concern about study ethics 1969 CDC and AMA support continuing the study • 1972 NY Times front page article • 1972 Study ends. • 1973 Lawsuit filed by NAACP • 9 million in reparations • Treatment • Many were already dead – all had suffered • 1997 May 16th President Clinton Apologizes on behalf of the Nation.

  25. CASE: Eastell • “leading bone specialist” • One of 6 authors of study of Actonel (Proctor & Gamble) • No access to data • Signed journal form that did have access • His letter to Journal of Bone and Mineral Research stated that only a P&G statistician had data access • Errors in the study also admitted • A co-author taped him saying “The only thing that we have to watch all the time is our relationship with P&G. Because we have….grant, which is a good source of income, we have got to really watch it.” • The Guardian, Boseley, 9-18-09

  26. Online Case for Study • Query, Video-presentation, Query (QVQ): A New Method for Teaching RCR in a Case-based Format by Sara Vollmer University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Philosophy and Center for Ethics and Values in the Sciences • http://www.uab.edu/researchintegrityandimages/case_study/default.html

More Related