You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Current controversy
COVID-19 controlled human infection studies: worries about local community impact and demands for local engagement
  1. Kyungdo Lee1,
  2. Nir Eyal2
  1. 1 Department of Health Behavior, Society and Policy, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
  2. 2 Center for Population-Level Bioethics, Department of Philosophy (SAS) and Department of HBSP (SPH), Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Nir Eyal, Center for Population-Level Bioethics, Dept of Philosophy (SAS) and Dept of HBSP (SPH), Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; nir.eyal{at}rutgers.edu

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/usage

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107229

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    Data availability statement

    There are no data in this work.

    View Full Text

    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.

    Other content recommended for you