Clinical trials are closely supervised by appropriate regulatory authorities. All studies involving a medical or therapeutic intervention on patients must be approved by a supervising ethics committee before permission is granted to run the trial. The local ethics committee has discretion on how it will supervise noninterventional studies (observational studies or those using already collected data). In the US, this body is called the
Institutional Review Board (IRB); in the EU, they are called
Ethics committees. Most IRBs are located at the local investigator's hospital or institution, but some sponsors allow the use of a central (independent/for profit) IRB for investigators who work at smaller institutions. To be ethical, researchers must obtain the full and
informed consent of participating human subjects. (One of the IRB's main functions is to ensure potential patients are adequately informed about the clinical trial.) If the patient is unable to consent for him/herself, researchers can seek consent from the patient's legally authorized representative. In addition, the clinical trial participants must be made aware that they can withdraw from the clinical trial at any time without any adverse action taken against them. In
California, the state has prioritized the individuals who can serve as the legally authorized representative. In some US locations, the local IRB must certify researchers and their staff before they can conduct clinical trials. They must understand the federal patient privacy (
HIPAA) law and good clinical practice. The International Conference of Harmonisation Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice is a set of standards used internationally for the conduct of clinical trials. The guidelines aim to ensure the "rights, safety and well being of trial subjects are protected". The notion of informed consent of participating human subjects exists in many countries but its precise definition may still vary. Informed consent is clearly a 'necessary' condition for ethical conduct but does not 'ensure' ethical conduct. In
compassionate use trials the latter becomes a particularly difficult problem. The final objective is to serve the community of patients or future patients in a best-possible and most responsible way. See also
Expanded access. However, it may be hard to turn this objective into a well-defined, quantified, objective function. In some cases this can be done, however, for instance, for questions of when to stop sequential treatments (see
Odds algorithm), and then quantified methods may play an important role. Additional ethical concerns are present when conducting
clinical trials on children (
pediatrics), and in emergency or epidemic situations. Ethically balancing the rights of multiple stakeholders may be difficult. For example, when drug trials fail, the sponsors may have a duty to tell current and potential investors immediately, which means both the research staff and the enrolled participants may first hear about the end of a trial through public
business news.
Conflicts of interest and unfavorable studies In response to specific cases in which unfavorable data from pharmaceutical company-sponsored research were not published, the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America published new guidelines urging companies to report all findings and limit the financial involvement in drug companies by researchers. The
US Congress signed into law a bill which requires phaseII and phaseIII clinical trials to be registered by the sponsor on the
clinicaltrials.gov website compiled by the
National Institutes of Health. Drug researchers not directly employed by pharmaceutical companies often seek grants from manufacturers, and manufacturers often look to academic researchers to conduct studies within networks of universities and their hospitals, e.g., for
translational cancer research. Similarly, competition for tenured academic positions, government grants and prestige create conflicts of interest among academic scientists. According to one study, approximately 75% of articles retracted for misconduct-related reasons have no declared industry financial support.
Seeding trials are particularly controversial. In the United States, all clinical trials submitted to the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of a drug approval process are independently assessed by clinical experts within the FDA, including inspections of primary data collection at selected clinical trial sites. In 2001, the editors of 12 major journals issued a joint editorial, published in each journal, on the control over clinical trials exerted by sponsors, particularly targeting the use of contracts which allow sponsors to review the studies prior to publication and withhold publication. They strengthened editorial restrictions to counter the effect. The editorial noted that
contract research organizations had, by 2000, received 60% of the grants from
pharmaceutical companies in the US. Researchers may be restricted from contributing to the trial design, accessing the raw data, and interpreting the results. Despite explicit recommendations by stakeholders of measures to improve the standards of industry-sponsored medical research, in 2013,
Tohen warned of the persistence of a gap in the credibility of conclusions arising from industry-funded clinical trials, and called for ensuring strict adherence to ethical standards in industrial collaborations with academia, in order to avoid further erosion of the public's trust. Issues referred for attention in this respect include potential observation bias, duration of the observation time for maintenance studies, the selection of the patient populations, factors that affect placebo response, and funding sources.
During public health crisis Conducting clinical trials of vaccines during epidemics and pandemics is subject to ethical concerns. For diseases with high mortality rates like Ebola, assigning individuals to a placebo or control group can be viewed as a death sentence. In response to ethical concerns regarding clinical research during epidemics, the
National Academy of Medicine authored a report identifying seven ethical and scientific considerations. These considerations are: • Scientific value • Social value • Respect for persons • Community engagement • Concern for participant welfare and interests • A balance towards benefit over risks • Post-trial access to tested therapies that had been withheld during the trial
Pregnant women and children Pregnant women and children are typically excluded from clinical trials as vulnerable populations, though the data to support excluding them is not robust. By excluding them from clinical trials, information about the safety and effectiveness of therapies for these populations is often lacking. During the early history of the
HIV/AIDS epidemic, a scientist noted that by excluding these groups from potentially life-saving treatment, they were being "protected to death". Projects such as Research Ethics for Vaccines, Epidemics, and New Technologies (PREVENT) have advocated for the ethical inclusion of pregnant women in vaccine trials. Inclusion of children in clinical trials has additional moral considerations, as children lack decision-making autonomy. Trials in the past had been criticized for using hospitalized children or orphans; these ethical concerns effectively stopped future research. In efforts to maintain effective pediatric care, several European countries and the US have policies to entice or compel pharmaceutical companies to conduct pediatric trials. International guidance recommends ethical pediatric trials by limiting harm, considering varied risks, and taking into account the complexities of pediatric care. ==Safety==