International direct-to-participant (DTP) genomics research involves the use of mobile technology to recruit, consent, and study participants remotely. This model can facilitate research across broad geographies and many countries, but must also comply with the norms of multiple recruitment jurisdictions, with each jurisdiction typically requiring at least one local research ethics review. Each additional research ethics review increases bureaucratic hurdles without necessarily strengthening the protection of participants’ rights and interests. For DTP genomic research, obtaining a review may in fact be (...) impossible in the absence of a local research partner. This paper proposes an “adequacy” approach, inspired by data protection law, to coordinate the regulation and oversight of international DTP genomics research. This involves one country voluntarily assessing whether another country’s research ethics reviews are equivalent to its own, in terms of objectives and effectiveness. Ethics-approved projects led by researchers from countries recognized as adequate are deemed to comply with local norms, eliminating the need for a duplicative local review. Adequacy preserves the sovereignty of countries to determine their own regulatory aims and which other countries to trust. It therefore provides a voluntary, incremental path towards greater global coordination of health research oversight. (shrink)

The Médecins Sans Frontières ethics review board has been solicited in an unprecedented way to provide advice and review research protocols in an ‘emergency’ mode during the recent Ebola epidemic. Twenty-seven Ebola-related study protocols were reviewed between March 2014 and August 2015, ranging from epidemiological research, to behavioural research, infectivity studies and clinical trials with investigational products at early development stages. This article examines the MSF ERB’s experience addressing issues related to both the process of review and substantive ethical issues (...) in this context. These topics include lack of policies regarding blood sample collection and use, and engaging communities regarding their storage and future use; exclusion of pregnant women from clinical and vaccine trials; and the difficulty of implementing timely and high-quality qualitative/anthropological research to consider potential upfront harms. Having noticed different standards across ethics committees, we propose that when multiple ethics reviews of clinical and vaccine trials are carried out during a public health emergency they should be accompanied by transparent communication between the ECs involved. The MSF ERB experience should trigger a broader discussion on the ‘optimal’ ethics review in an emergency outbreak and what enduring structural changes are needed to improve the ethics review process. (shrink)