Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Apr;16(1):4-14.
doi: 10.1111/dewb.12072. Epub 2014 Nov 10.

Reviewing HIV-Related Research in Emerging Economies: The Role of Government Reviewing Agencies

Patrina Sexton, Katrina Hui, Donna Hanrahan, Mark Barnes, Jeremy Sugarman, Alex John London, Robert Klitzman
Review

Reviewing HIV-Related Research in Emerging Economies: The Role of Government Reviewing Agencies

Patrina Sexton et al. Dev World Bioeth. 2016 Apr.

Abstract

Little research has explored the possible effects of government institutions in emerging economies on ethical reviews of multinational research. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth telephone interviews with 15 researchers, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) personnel, and a government agency member involved in multinational HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) research in emerging economies. Ministries of Health (MOH) or other government agencies often play pivotal roles as facilitators or barriers in the research ethics approval process. Government agency RECs reviewing protocols may face particular challenges, as they can lack resources, be poorly organized, have inconsistent review processes and limited expertise, and use differing definitions of national interests, including upholding national reputation and avoiding potential exploitation and stigma of the country's population. The MOH/governmental review body may be affected by power dynamics and politics in study reviews; may consider issues both related and unrelated to research ethics as understood elsewhere; and may prioritize particular diseases, treatments, or interventions over other topics/types of research. Poor communication and deeply-rooted tensions may exist between sponsor and host countries, impeding optimal interactions and reviews. Investigators must understand and plan for the potential effects of governmental agencies on multinational collaborative research, including preserving adequate time for agency review, and contacting these agencies beforehand to address issues that may arise. Better understanding of these issues can aid and advance appropriate global scientific collaboration.

Keywords: Emerging Economies; Ethics; HIV; Institutional Review Boards; Ministries of Health; Research Ethics Committees.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Relationships between government agencies, researchers and IRBs/RECs.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Klitzman R. IRBs confront research in the developing world. Dev World Bioeth. 2012;12(2):63–73. - PMC - PubMed
    1. London AJ. A non-paternalistic model of research ethics and oversight: assessing the benefits of prospective review. J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40(4):930–944. - PubMed
    1. Burris S, Moss K. US health researchers review their ethics review boards: a qualitative study. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006;1(2):39–58. - PubMed
    1. De Vries RG, Forsberg CP. Who decides? A look at ethics committee membership. HEC Forum. 2002;14(3):252–258. - PubMed
    1. Greene SM, Geiger AM. A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve Institutional Review Board approval. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:784–790. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources