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.
- research ethics
- research on special populations
This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors SH is the sole author of this article.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement No data are available.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Human infection challenge studies in endemic settings and/or low-income and middle-income countries: key points of ethical consensus and controversy
- Covid-19 vaccines: Should we allow human challenge studies to infect healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2?
- Why continuing uncertainties are no reason to postpone challenge trials for coronavirus vaccines
- Global, regional, and national estimates of target population sizes for covid-19 vaccination: descriptive study
- SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies: ethics and risk minimisation
- Global access to COVID-19 vaccines: a scoping review of factors that may influence equitable access for low and middle-income countries
- Do coronavirus vaccine challenge trials have a distinctive generalisability problem?
- Review of COVID-19 vaccine subtypes, efficacy and geographical distributions
- COVID-19 controlled human infection studies: worries about local community impact and demands for local engagement
- Will vaccination refusal prolong the war on SARS-CoV-2?