Faculty Bibliography

The World Health Organization's (WHO) Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA), established in 2016, is designed to enhance transparency, impartiality, and conflict-of-interest safeguards by setting rigorous guidelines for WHO's interactions with private entities, particularly those in high-risk industries such as tobacco, alcohol, and arms. This paper briefly reviews the implementation and impact of FENSA, observing that, despite these safeguards, its application in academic contexts poses specific challenges. Universities, often reliant on diverse funding sources, may find the rules restrictive and misaligned with independent funding needs. The creation of the WHO Foundation in 2020 further complicates this landscape by enabling engagements with previously restricted private sector entities through an "arm's length" model. The authors advocate for a reassessment of FENSA to resolve inconsistencies and support essential academic collaborations, while upholding WHO's commitment to ethical standards.

The celebrated 1980 announcement that smallpox had been eradicated was made using the following definition of eradication: "Permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection caused by a specific agent as a result of deliberate efforts: intervention measures are no longer needed." Public health around the world works with this definition of "eradication," setting it as a goal for other infectious disease control programs. The definition is simple. Its application, however, has produced long-running and complex public health campaigns that threaten the commitment of funders, health care providers, and governments. In this paper, the authors demonstrate the disease-specific challenges of eradication through the example of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI). While many deem eradication worth its high costs because it is the end of morbidity and mortality from a disease, it does not mean the end of disease control efforts. Public health must be prepared for the possibility of disease reoccurrence in the form of undetected natural reservoirs of disease, lab leaks from stored samples, bioterror attacks using stolen samples, and the synthetic recreation of microbes. This paper clarifies the role of reoccurrence prevention in eradication, calling for its addition in the definition of eradication.

Despite significant public health attention and investment, hundreds of thousands of individuals have suffered fatal opioid overdose since the onset of the opioid crisis. Risk of opioid overdose has been exacerbated by the influx of fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid, into the drug supply. The National Institutes of Health Helping End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Initiative is supporting the development of vaccines targeting fentanyl to protect against overdose. If successful, a vaccine would induce anti-fentanyl antibodies to sequester fentanyl (but not other opioids) in the blood, preventing fentanyl from crossing into the brain and reaching the central nervous system where it can cause overdose. Introduction of an overdose preventing strategy that relies on a vaccine to confer passive protection may be impactful. However, vaccines are poorly understood by the public and politicized. Moreover, the overdose ecosystem is complex and extends across numerous social, economic, medical, and cultural systems. As such, optimal use of a vaccine strategy to address overdose may benefit from multidisciplinary consideration of the social, ethical, and systemic factors that influence substance use and overdose that may also impact the acceptability of a fentanyl vaccine and related implementation strategies. In March 2022, Dr. Elissa Weitzman convened a two-day conference at the Harvard Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study on the Social Complexity of a Fentanyl Vaccine to Prevent Opioid Overdose. In all, 19 professionals from diverse disciplines (medicine, psychology, history, ethics, immunology, vaccinology, communications, policy) attended the conference and led discussions that centered on population health and epidemiology, history of medicine and frameworks for understanding substance use, ethics, decision-making and attitudes, and operational issues to the question of a novel immunotherapy targeting fentanyl overdose. Participants also debated the risks and benefits of vaccine administration in response to fictional clinical case vignettes. A summary of the conference presentations and discussions follows.

In a 2022 consultation, the UK public highlighted the need to disseminate trial results to participants. We assess whether the information provided to trial participants in publicly available participant information sheets (PISs) of trials conducted in the UK is helpful for future trials. This cross-sectional study is based on a search conducted on 18 August 2023 on ClinicalTrials.gov looking for UK completed or terminated phase 2-4 medicine trials. The posted PIS (or the protocol, if the PIS was unavailable) were reviewed checking the text used to inform participants on how results will be disseminated to participants. Of the 48 records retrieved, 32 were included: 23 and 9 had the PIS or the protocol posted, respectively. Seven (22%) did not mention dissemination of results to participants. Thirteen (41%) used the same short "common, standard text" of four sentences to inform participants. This text mentioned ClinicalTrials.gov as the source for further information and US Law as the reason for it. Twelve (38%) used different texts with different scopes and lengths. These results showed that publicly available PISs of medicinal product trials conducted in the UK are very limited and of scarce utility for investigators aiming to start a new trial.

Research involving recently deceased humans that are physiologically maintained following declaration of death by neurologic criteria-or 'research involving the recently deceased'-can fill a translational research gap while reducing harm to animals and living human subjects. It also creates new challenges for honouring the donor's legacy, respecting the rights of donor loved ones, resource allocation and public health. As this research model gains traction, new empirical ethics questions must be answered to preserve public trust in all forms of tissue donation and in the practice of medicine while respecting the legacy of the deceased and the rights of donor loved ones. This article suggests several topics for immediate investigation to understand the attitudes and experiences of researchers, clinical collaborators, donor loved ones and the public to ensure research involving the recently deceased advances ethically.