This article informally reviews key research ethics guidelines and regulations, academic scholarship, and research studies and finds wide variety in how they consider risk to bystanders in medical research (namely, non-participants whom studies nevertheless place at risk). Some of these key sources give no or very little consideration to bystanders, while others offer them the utmost protection (greater than they offer study participants). This unsettled frontier would benefit from a deeper investigation of the ethics of protecting research bystanders.
KimmelmanJ. Medical research, risk, and bystanders. IRB2005; 27(4): 1–6.
2.
BattinMPFrancisLPJacobsonJA, et al. The ethics of research in infectious disease: experimenting on this patient, risking harm to that one. In: BattinMPFrancisLPJacobsonJA, et al. (eds) The patient as victim and vector: ethics and infectious disease. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 164–183.
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA2013; 310: 2191–2194.
5.
ResnikDSharpRR. Protecting third parties in human subjects research. IRB2006; 28(4): 1–7.
6.
KimmelmanJ. Missing the forest: further thoughts on the ethics of bystander risk in medical research. Camb Q Healthc Ethics2007; 16(4): 483–490.
7.
International Military Tribunal. The Nuremberg Code (Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council law No 10 Nuernberg, October 1946-April, 1949. Washington, DC, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.[1949–53]). Nuremberg: International Military Tribunal, 1947.
8.
CIOMS and WHO. CIOMS guidelines. Geneva: CIOMS and WHO, 2016.
9.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2): ethical conduct for research involving humans, 2014, http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/TCPS2-EPTC2/Default/
10.
WeijerCGrimshawJMEcclesMP, et al. The Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials. PLoS Med2012; 9(11): e1001346.
11.
HausmanDM. Third-party risks in research: should IRBs address them. IRB2007; 29(3): 1–5.
12.
RidAWendlerD. A framework for risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J2011; 21(2): 141–179.
13.
FarquharSCotton-BarrattOSnyder-BeattieA. Pricing externalities to balance public risks and benefits of research. Health Secur2017; 15(4): 401–408.
14.
BarkerJHPolcrackL. Respect for persons, informed consent and the assessment of infectious disease risks in xenotransplantation. Med Health Care Philos2001; 4(1): 53–70.
15.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Issues in organ donor intervention research. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017.
16.
EvansNGLipsitchMLevinsonM. The ethics of biosafety considerations in gain-of-function research resulting in the creation of potential pandemic pathogens. J Med Ethics2015; 41(11): 901–908.
17.
ShahSKKimmelmanJLyerlyAD, et al. Bystander risk, social value, and ethics of human research. Science2018; 360(6385): 158–159.
18.
ShahSKKimmelmanJLyerlyAD, et al. Ethical considerations for Zika virus human challenge trials. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 2017.
SalkJ. Immunization against poliomyelitis: risk/ benefit/cost in a changing context. Dev Biol Stand1979; 43: 151–157.
22.
Ethics Working Group on ZIKV Research & Pregnancy. Pregnant women & the Zika virus vaccine research agenda: ethics guidance on priorities, inclusion, and evidence generation, 2017, http://guidance.zikapregnancyethics.org
