Article Text
Abstract
In spring, summer and autumn 2020, one abiding argument against controlled human infection (CHI) studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been their impact on local communities. Leading scientists and bioethicists expressed concern about undue usage of local residents’ direly needed scarce resources at a time of great need and even about their unintended infection. They recommended either avoiding CHI trials or engaging local communities before conducting any CHIs. Similar recommendations were not made for the alternative—standard phase III field trials of these same vaccines. We argue that the health effects of CHI studies on local residents not participating in the study tend to be smaller and more positive than those of field trials. That is all the more so now that tested vaccines are being rolled out. Whether or not local community engagement is necessary for urgent vaccine studies in the pandemic, the case for its engagement is stronger prior to field trials than prior to CHI studies.
- ethics
- COVID-19
- research ethics
- clinical trials
- public health ethics
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work.
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/usageStatistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work.
Footnotes
Contributors NE has written the first draft and suggested the general design of this paper. KL has revised a substantial portion of the first draft in its content and structure. Both the authors have approved of this article being published.
Funding NE receives funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services–National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease), award no. AI114617-01A1; National Science Foundation, award no. 2039320; and Open Philanthropy, award no. not applicable.
Competing interests NE serves on the advisory board for challenge trial intended-volunteer group 1DaySooner, an unpaid position.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Do coronavirus vaccine challenge trials have a distinctive generalisability problem?
- Human infection challenge studies in endemic settings and/or low-income and middle-income countries: key points of ethical consensus and controversy
- Research ethics and public trust in vaccines: the case of COVID-19 challenge trials
- Exploring the ethics of tuberculosis human challenge models
- Science, politics, ethics and the pandemic
- Controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2 to study COVID-19 vaccines and treatments: bioethics in Utopia
- Embedding Aboriginal cultural governance, capacity, perspectives and leadership into a local Public Health Unit Incident Command System during COVID-19 in New South Wales, Australia
- SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies: ethics and risk minimisation
- Descriptive assessment of COVID-19 responses and lessons learnt in Cambodia, January 2020 to June 2022
- Behaviour adoption approaches during public health emergencies: implications for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond