Data from the 5–6 year control questionnaire of the ABIS study, a Swedish prospective screening of children for Type 1 diabetes, indicates a genuine trust in the researchers—very few participating families expressed concern about their participation. Nevertheless, a majority do not want their research data to be used beyond the agreement of the original consent. They want to be asked for renewed consent in such cases. A vast majority also want potential high-risk information about their child to be communicated to (...) them. Most participating families want this regardless of whether any preventive treatment is available. Although potential benefits for their child is a motivation for participation for a majority of the respondents, they also claim to be motivated by altruistic reasons. These results are compared to results from two similar studies in the UK. (shrink)

Based on extensive clinical questionnaire data, this paper explores the relation between research subjects’ self-assessed understanding and actual knowledge of a large-scale predictive screening study, and its implications for the proper handling of information and consent routines in longitudinal studies. The intitial data show that low self-assessed understanding among participants was correlated with limited knowledge, concern over participation and collected samples, less satisfaction with information, and feeling passive or negative towards the study. Among those reporting high understanding, a non-negligible number (...) displayed a lack of knowledge regarding central aspects of the study. Regarding high assessed understanding, the multivariate analysis identified the main predictor variables to be knowledge, having a positive attitude towards participation and the study itself, being satisfied with information, having a stable psychosocial background and feeling calm regarding the handling of samples. These findings indicate that to evaluate participants' understanding through self-assessment may not be reliable method. Self-assessed understanding may rather be a good indicator of general attitudes than a tool for analysing content. The data also show that actual understanding varies considerably among participants, suggesting that more effort needs to be put into adjusting the information to the needs of different subgroups. It is argued that when doing this, researchers in longitudinal studies must be careful not to exhaust participants with excessive information that they do not want and that may cause them to drop out. The ethical relevance of obtaining repeated consents in longitudinal research is discussed. (shrink)

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upoconcentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of (...) this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research. (shrink)

Dyck and Allen claim that the current model for mandatory ethical review of research involving human participants is unethical once the harms that accrue from the review process are identified. However, the assumptions upon which the authors assert that this model of research ethics governance is justified are false. In this commentary, I aim to correct these assumptions, and provide the right justificatory account of the requirement for research ethics review. This account clarifies why the subsequent arguments that Dyck and (...) Allen make in the paper lack force, and why the ‘governance problem’ in research ethics that they allude to ought to be explained differently. (shrink)