CIOMS Guidelines

International Ethical
Guidelines for Biomedical

Research Involving
Human Subjects
Prepared by the Council for International Organizations of
Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the
World Health Organization (WHO)
Geneva
2002
ISBN 92 9036 075 5
Copyright # by the Council for International
Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS)
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
AND GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
GENERAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
PREAMBLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
THE GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Ethical justification and scientific validity
of biomedical research involving human subjects . . . . . . . . 23
2. Ethical review committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3. Ethical review of externally sponsored research . . . . . . . . . 30
4. Individual informed consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5. Obtaining informed consent: Essential information
for prospective research subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6. Obtaining informed consent: Obligations
of sponsors and investigators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
7. Inducement to participate in research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
8. Benefits and risks of study participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
9. Special limitations on risk when research involves
individuals who are not capable of giving
informed consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
10. Research in populations and communities
with limited resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
11. Choice of control in clinical trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4 INTERNATIONAL ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
12. Equitable distribution of burdens and benefits

in the selection of groups of subjects in research . . . . . . . . 61
13. Research involving vulnerable persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
14. Research involving children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
15. Research involving individuals who by reason
of mental or behavioural disorders are not capable
of giving adequately informed consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
16. Women as research subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
17. Pregnant women as research subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
18. Safeguarding confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
19. Right of injured subjects to treatment
and compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
20. Strengthening capacity for ethical and
scientific review and biomedical research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
21. Ethical obligation of external sponsors to provide
health-care services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Appendix 1: Items to be included in a protocol
(or associated documents) for biomedical
research involving human subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Appendix 2: The Declaration of Helsinki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Appendix 3: The Phases of Clinical Trials
of Vaccines and Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Appendix 4: Members of the Steering Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Appendix 5: Consultation on Revising/Updating of
International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical
Research Involving Human Subjects
(March 2000): Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Appendix 6: Commentators on draft guidelines
(Organizations and individuals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Acknowledgements
The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences

(CIOMS) acknowledges the substantial financial contribution of the
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS to the preparation of
the 2002 International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research
Involving Human Subjects. The World Health Organization con-
tributed generously also, through the departments of Reproductive
Health and Research, Essential Drugs and Medicines Policy, Vaccines
and Biologicals, and HIV/AIDS/Sexually Transmitted Infections, as
well as the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical
Diseases. CIOMS was at all times free to avail itself of the services and
facilities of the World Health Organization.
CIOMS acknowledges also with much appreciation the financial
support to the project from the Government of Finland, the
Government of Switzerland, the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences,
the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health,
USA, and the Medical Research Council of the United Kingdom.
A number of institutions and organizations made valuable
contributions by making their experts available at no cost to CIOMS
for the three meetings held in relation to the revision project. This has
been highly appreciated.
The task of finalizing the various drafts was in the hands of
Professor Robert J. Levine, who has been consultant to the project
and chair of the steering committee, and whose profound knowledge
and understanding of the field is remarkable. He was ably assisted by
Dr James Gallagher of the CIOMS secretariat, who managed the
electronic discussion and endeavoured to accommodate or reflect in
the text the numerous comments received. He also edited the final text.
Special mention must be made of the informal drafting group set up to
bring the influence of various cultures to bear on the process. The
group, with two members of the CIOMS secretariat, met for five days
in New York in January 2001 and continued for several months to
interact electronically with one another and with the secretariat to
prepare the third draft, posted on the CIOMS website in June 2001:
Fernando Lolas Stepke (chair), John Bryant, Leonardo de Castro,

Kausar Khan, Robert Levine, Ruth Macklin, and Godfrey Tangwa.
They continued from October 2001, together with Florencia Luna and
Rodolfo Saracci, and cooperated in preparing the fourth draft. Their
contribution was invaluable.
The interest and comments of the many organizations and
individuals who responded to the several drafts of the guidelines
posted on the CIOMS website or otherwise made available are
gratefully acknowledged (Appendix 6).
At CIOMS, Sev Fluss was at all times ready and resourceful when
consulted, with advice and constructive comment, and Mrs Kathryn
Chalaby-Amsler responded most competently to the sometimes
considerable demands made on her administrative and secretarial
skills.
Background
The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences

(CIOMS) is an international nongovernmental organization in
official relations with the World Health Organization (WHO). It
was founded under the auspices of WHO and the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in
1949 with among its mandates that of maintaining collaborative
relations with the United Nations and its specialized agencies,
particularly with UNESCO and WHO.
CIOMS, in association with WHO, undertook its work on ethics in
relation to biomedical research in the late 1970s. At that time, newly
independent WHO Member States were setting up health-care
systems. WHO was not then in a position to promote ethics as an
aspect of health care or research. It was thus that CIOMS set out, in
cooperation with WHO, to prepare guidelines ‘‘to indicate how the
ethical principles that should guide the conduct of biomedical
research involving human subjects, as set forth in the Declaration of
Helsinki, could be effectively applied, particularly in developing
countries, given their socioeconomic circumstances, laws and regula-
tions, and executive and administrative arrangements’’. The World
Medical Association had issued the original Declaration of Helsinki
in 1964 and an amended version in 1975. The outcome of the CIOMS/
WHO undertaking was, in 1982, Proposed International Ethical
Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects.
The period that followed saw the outbreak of the HIV/AIDS
pandemic and proposals to undertake large-scale trials of vaccine and
treatment drugs for the condition. These raised new ethical issues that
had not been considered in the preparation of Proposed Guidelines.
There were other factors also — rapid advances in medicine and
biotechnology, changing research practices such as multinational field
trials, experimentation involving vulnerable population groups, and
also a changing view, in rich and poor countries, that research
involving human subjects was largely beneficial and not threatening.
The Declaration of Helsinki was revised twice in the 1980s — in 1983
and 1989. It was timely to revise and update the 1982 guidelines, and
CIOMS, with the cooperation of WHO and its Global Programme on
AIDS, undertook the task. The outcome was the issuing of two sets of
guidelines: in 1991, International Guidelines for Ethical Review of
Epidemiological Studies; and, in 1993, International Ethical Guidelines
for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects.
After 1993, ethical issues arose for which the CIOMS Guidelines
had no specific provision. They related mainly to controlled clinical
trials, with external sponsors and investigators, carried out in low-
resource countries and to the use of comparators other than an
established effective intervention. The issue in question was the
perceived need in those countries for low-cost, technologically
appropriate, public-health solutions, and in particular for HIV/AIDS
treatment drugs or vaccines that poorer countries could afford.
Commentators took opposing sides on this issue. One advocated, for
low-resource countries, trials of interventions that might be less
effective than the treatment available in the better-off countries, but
also would be less expensive. All research efforts for public solutions
appropriate to developing countries should not be rejected as
unethical, they claimed. The research context should be considered.
Local decision-making should be the norm. Paternalism on the part of
the richer countries towards poorer countries should be avoided. The
challenge was to encourage research for local solutions to the burden
of disease in much of the world, while providing clear guidance on
protecting against exploitation of vulnerable communities and
individuals.
The other side argued that such trials constituted, or risked
constituting, exploitation of poor countries by rich countries and were
inherently unethical. Economic factors should not influence ethical
considerations. It was within the capacity of rich countries or the
pharmaceutical industry to make established effective treatment
available for comparator purposes. Certain low-resource countries
had already made available from their own resources established
effective treatment for their HIV/AIDS patients.
This conflict complicated the revision and updating of the 1993
Guidelines. Ultimately, it became clear that the conflicting views
could not be reconciled, though the proponents of the former view
claimed that the new draft guidelines had built in effective safeguards
BACKGROUND 9
against exploitation. The commentary to the Guideline concerned

(11) recognizes the unresolved, or unresolvable, conflict.
The revision/updating of the 1993 Guidelines began in December
1998, and a first draft prepared by the CIOMS consultant for the
project was reviewed by the project steering committee, which met in
May 1999. The committee proposed amendments and listed topics on
which new or revised guidelines were indicated; it recommended
papers to be commissioned on the topics, as well as authors and
commentators, for presentation and discussion at a CIOMS interim
consultation. It was considered that an interim consultation meeting,
of members of the steering committee together with the authors of
commissioned papers and designated commentators, followed by
further redrafting and electronic distribution and feedback, would
better serve the purpose of the project than the process originally
envisaged, which had been to complete the revision in one further step.
The consultation was accordingly organized for March 2000, in
Geneva.
At the consultation, progress on the revision was reported and
contentious matters reviewed. Eight commissioned papers previously
distributed were presented, commented upon, and discussed. The
work of the consultation continued with ad hoc electronic working
groups over the following several weeks, and the outcome was made
available for the preparation of the third draft. The material
commissioned for the consultation was made the subject of a CIOMS
publication: Biomedical Research Ethics: Updating International
Guidelines. A Consultation (December 2000).
An informal redrafting group of eight, from Africa, Asia, Latin
America, the United States and the CIOMS secretariat, met in New
York City in January 2001, and subsequently interacted electronically
with one another and with the CIOMS secretariat. A revised draft was
posted on the CIOMS website in June 2001 and otherwise widely
distributed. Many organizations and individuals commented, some
extensively, some critically. Views on certain positions, notably on
placebo-controlled trials, were contradictory. For the subsequent
revision two members were added to the redrafting group, from
Europe and Latin America. The consequent draft was posted on the
website in January 2002 in preparation for the CIOMS Conference in
February/ March 2002.
The CIOMS Conference was convened to discuss and, as far as

possible, endorse a final draft to be submitted for final approval to the
CIOMS Executive Committee. Besides representation of member
organizations of CIOMS, participants included experts in ethics and
research from all continents. They reviewed the draft guidelines
seriatim and suggested modifications. Guideline 11, Choice of control
in clinical trials, was redrafted at the conference in an effort to reduce
disagreement. The redrafted text of that guideline was intensively
discussed and generally well received. Some participants, however,
continued to question the ethical acceptability of the exception to the
general rule limiting the use of placebo to the conditions set out in the
guideline; they argued that research subjects should not be exposed to
risk of serious or irreversible harm when an established effective
intervention could prevent such harm, and that such exposure could
constitute exploitation. Ultimately, the commentary of Guideline 11
reflects the opposing positions on use of a comparator other than an
established effective intervention for control purposes.
The new text, the 2002 text, which supersedes that of 1993, consists
of a statement of general ethical principles, a preamble and 21 guide-
lines, with an introduction and a brief account of earlier instruments
and guidelines. Like the 1982 and 1993 Guidelines, the present
publication is designed to be of use, particularly to low-resource
countries, in defining national policies on the ethics of biomedical
research, applying ethical standards in local circumstances, and
establishing or redefining adequate mechanisms for ethical review of
research involving human subjects.
Comments on the Guidelines are welcome

and should be addressed to the Secretary-General,
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences,
c/o World Health Organization,
CH-1211 Geneva 27,
Switzerland;
or by e-mail to [email protected]
Introduction
This is the third in the series of international ethical guidelines for

biomedical research involving human subjects issued by the Council
for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) since
1982. Its scope and preparation reflect well the transformation that has
occurred in the field of research ethics in the almost quarter century
since CIOMS first undertook to make this contribution to medical
sciences and the ethics of research. The CIOMS Guidelines, with their
stated concern for the application of the Declaration of Helsinki in
developing countries, necessarily reflect the conditions and the needs
of biomedical research in those countries, and the implications for
multinational or transnational research in which they may be partners.
An issue, mainly for those countries and perhaps less pertinent now
than in the past, has been the extent to which ethical principles are
considered universal or as culturally relative — the universalist versus
the pluralist view. The challenge to international research ethics is to
apply universal ethical principles to biomedical research in a
multicultural world with a multiplicity of health-care systems and
considerable variation in standards of health care. The Guidelines
take the position that research involving human subjects must not
violate any universally applicable ethical standards, but acknowledge
that, in superficial aspects, the application of the ethical principles,
e.g., in relation to individual autonomy and informed consent, needs
to take account of cultural values, while respecting absolutely the
ethical standards.
Related to this issue is that of the human rights of research subjects,
as well as of health professionals as researchers in a variety of
sociocultural contexts, and the contribution that international human
rights instruments can make in the application of the general
principles of ethics to research involving human subjects. The issue
concerns largely, though not exclusively, two principles: respect for
autonomy and protection of dependent or vulnerable persons and
populations. In the preparation of the Guidelines the potential
contribution in these respects of human rights instruments and norms
was discussed,1 and the Guideline drafters have represented the views
of commentators on safeguarding the corresponding rights of
subjects.
Certain areas of biomedical research are not represented by
specific guidelines. One such is human genetics. It is, however,
considered in Guideline 18 Commentary under Issues of confiden-
tiality in genetics research. The ethics of genetics research was the
subject of a commissioned paper and commentary.2
Another unrepresented area is research with products of concep-
tion (embryo and fetal research, and fetal tissue research). An attempt
to craft a guideline on the topic proved unfeasible. At issue was the
moral status of embryos and fetuses and the degree to which risks to
the life or well-being of these entities are ethically permissible.3
In relation to the use of comparators in controls, commentators
have raised the the question of standard of care to be provided to a
control group. They emphasize that standard of care refers to more
than the comparator drug or other intervention, and that research
subjects in the poorer countries do not usually enjoy the same
standard of all-round care enjoyed by subjects in richer countries. This
issue is not addressed specifically in the Guidelines.
In one respect the Guidelines depart from the terminology of the
Declaration of Helsinki. ‘Best current intervention’ is the term most
commonly used to describe the active comparator that is ethically
preferred in controlled clinical trials. For many indications, however,
there is more than one established ‘current’ intervention and expert
clinicians do not agree on which is superior. In other circumstances in
which there are several established ‘current’ interventions, some
expert clinicians recognize one as superior to the rest; some commonly
1
Andreopoulos, GJ. 2000. Declarations and covenants of human rights and
international codes of research ethics, pp. 181–203; and An-Na’im AA,
Commentary, pp. 204–206. In: Levine, RJ, Gorovitz, S, Gallagher, J. (eds.)
Biomedical Research Ethics: Updating International Guidelines. A Consultation.
Geneva, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences.
2
Clayton EW. 2000. Genetics research: towards international guidelines, pp. 152–
169; and Qiu, Ren-Zong, Commentary, pp. 170–177. ibid.
3
Macklin R. 2000. Reproductive biology and technology, pp. 208–224; and Luna F,
Commentary, pp. 225–229. ibid.
INTRODUCTION 13
prescribe another because the superior intervention may be locally

unavailable, for example, or prohibitively expensive or unsuited to the
capability of particular patients to adhere to a complex and rigorous
regimen. ‘Established effective intervention’ is the term used in
Guideline 11 to refer to all such interventions, including the best and
the various alternatives to the best. In some cases an ethical review
committee may determine that it is ethically acceptable to use an
established effective intervention as a comparator, even in cases where
such an intervention is not considered the best current intervention.
The mere formulation of ethical guidelines for biomedical research
involving human subjects will hardly resolve all the moral doubts that
can arise in association with much research, but the Guidelines can at
least draw the attention of sponsors, investigators and ethical review
committees to the need to consider carefully the ethical implications of
research protocols and the conduct of research, and thus conduce to
high scientific and ethical standards of biomedical research.
International Instruments
and Guidelines
The first international instrument on the ethics of medical research,

the Nuremberg Code, was promulgated in 1947 as a consequence of
the trial of physicians (the Doctors’ Trial) who had conducted
atrocious experiments on unconsenting prisoners and detainees
during the second world war. The Code, designed to protect the
integrity of the research subject, set out conditions for the ethical
conduct of research involving human subjects, emphasizing their
voluntary consent to research.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948. To give the
Declaration legal as well as moral force, the General Assembly
adopted in 1966 the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. Article 7 of the Covenant states ‘‘No one shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In
particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical
or scientific experimentation’’. It is through this statement that society
expresses the fundamental human value that is held to govern all
research involving human subjects — the protection of the rights and
welfare of all human subjects of scientific experimentation.
The Declaration of Helsinki, issued by the World Medical
Association in 1964, is the fundamental international document in
the field of ethics in biomedical research and has influenced the
formulation of international, regional and national legislation and
codes of conduct. The Declaration, amended several times, most
recently in 2000 (Appendix 2), is a comprehensive statement of the
ethics of research involving human subjects. It sets out ethical
guidelines for physicians engaged in both clinical and nonclinical
biomedical research.
Since the publication of the CIOMS 1993 Guidelines, several
international organizations have issued ethical guidance on clinical
trials. This has included, from the World Health Organization, in
1995, Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice for Trials on Pharmaceu-

tical Products; and from the International Conference on Harmonisa-
tion of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals
for Human Use (ICH), in 1996, Guideline on Good Clinical Practice,
designed to ensure that data generated from clinical trials are
mutually acceptable to regulatory authorities in the European Union,
Japan and the United States of America. The Joint United Nations
Programme on HIV/AIDS published in 2000 the UNAIDS Guidance
Document Ethical Considerations in HIV Preventive Vaccine Re-
search.
In 2001 the Council of Ministers of the European Union adopted a
Directive on clinical trials, which will be binding on Member States
from 2004. The Council of Europe, with 44 member States, is
developing a Protocol on Biomedical Research, which will be an
additional protocol to the Council’s 1997 Convention on Human
Rights and Biomedicine.
Not specifically concerned with biomedical research involving
human subjects but clearly pertinent, as noted above, are interna-
tional human rights instruments. These are mainly the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which, particularly in its science
provisions, was highly influenced by the Nuremberg Code; the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Since the Nuremberg experience, human rights law has expanded to
include the protection of women (Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) and children (Con-
vention on the Rights of the Child). All endorse in terms of human
rights the general ethical principles that underlie the CIOMS
International Ethical Guidelines.
General Ethical Principles
All research involving human subjects should be conducted in

accordance with three basic ethical principles, namely respect for
persons, beneficence and justice. It is generally agreed that these
principles, which in the abstract have equal moral force, guide the
conscientious preparation of proposals for scientific studies. In varying
circumstances they may be expressed differently and given different
moral weight, and their application may lead to different decisions or
courses of action. The present guidelines are directed at the application
of these principles to research involving human subjects.
Respect for persons incorporates at least two fundamental ethical

considerations, namely:
a) respect for autonomy, which requires that those who are capable
of deliberation about their personal choices should be treated
with respect for their capacity for self-determination; and
b) protection of persons with impaired or diminished autonomy,
which requires that those who are dependent or vulnerable be
afforded security against harm or abuse.
Beneficence refers to the ethical obligation to maximize benefit and to

minimize harm. This principle gives rise to norms requiring that the
risks of research be reasonable in the light of the expected benefits,
that the research design be sound, and that the investigators be
competent both to conduct the research and to safeguard the welfare
of the research subjects. Beneficence further proscribes the deliberate
infliction of harm on persons; this aspect of beneficence is sometimes
expressed as a separate principle, nonmaleficence (do no harm).
Justice refers to the ethical obligation to treat each person in

accordance with what is morally right and proper, to give each
person what is due to him or her. In the ethics of research involving
human subjects the principle refers primarily to distributive justice,
which requires the equitable distribution of both the burdens and the
benefits of participation in research. Differences in distribution of

burdens and benefits are justifiable only if they are based on morally
relevant distinctions between persons; one such distinction is
vulnerability. ‘‘Vulnerability’’ refers to a substantial incapacity to
protect one’s own interests owing to such impediments as lack of
capability to give informed consent, lack of alternative means of
obtaining medical care or other expensive necessities, or being a junior
or subordinate member of a hierarchical group. Accordingly, special
provision must be made for the protection of the rights and welfare of
vulnerable persons.
Sponsors of research or investigators cannot, in general, be held
accountable for unjust conditions where the research is conducted,
but they must refrain from practices that are likely to worsen unjust
conditions or contribute to new inequities. Neither should they take
advantage of the relative inability of low-resource countries or
vulnerable populations to protect their own interests, by conducting
research inexpensively and avoiding complex regulatory systems of
industrialized countries in order to develop products for the lucrative
markets of those countries.
In general, the research project should leave low-resource countries
or communities better off than previously or, at least, no worse off. It
should be responsive to their health needs and priorities in that any
product developed is made reasonably available to them, and as far as
possible leave the population in a better position to obtain effective
health care and protect its own health.
Justice requires also that the research be responsive to the health
conditions or needs of vulnerable subjects. The subjects selected
should be the least vulnerable necessary to accomplish the purposes of
the research. Risk to vulnerable subjects is most easily justified when it
arises from interventions or procedures that hold out for them the
prospect of direct health-related benefit. Risk that does not hold out
such prospect must be justified by the anticipated benefit to the
population of which the individual research subject is representative.
Preamble
The term ‘‘research’’ refers to a class of activity designed to develop or

contribute to generalizable knowledge. Generalizable knowledge
consists of theories, principles or relationships, or the accumulation of
information on which they are based, that can be corroborated by
accepted scientific methods of observation and inference. In the
present context ‘‘research’’ includes both medical and behavioural
studies pertaining to human health. Usually ‘‘research’’ is modified by
the adjective ‘‘biomedical’’ to indicate its relation to health.
Progress in medical care and disease prevention depends upon an
understanding of physiological and pathological processes or
epidemiological findings, and requires at some time research
involving human subjects. The collection, analysis and interpretation
of information obtained from research involving human beings
contribute significantly to the improvement of human health.
Research involving human subjects includes:
7 studies of a physiological, biochemical or pathological process,
or of the response to a specific intervention — whether physical,
chemical or psychological — in healthy subjects or patients;
7 controlled trials of diagnostic, preventive or therapeutic
measures in larger groups of persons, designed to demonstrate
a specific generalizable response to these measures against a
background of individual biological variation;
7 studies designed to determine the consequences for individuals
and communities of specific preventive or therapeutic measures;
and
7 studies concerning human health-related behaviour in a variety
of circumstances and environments.
Research involving human subjects may employ either observation
or physical, chemical or psychological intervention; it may also either
generate records or make use of existing records containing
biomedical or other information about individuals who may or may
not be identifiable from the records or information. The use of such
records and the protection of the confidentiality of data obtained
from those records are discussed in International Guidelines for Ethical

Review of Epidemiological Studies (CIOMS, 1991).
The research may be concerned with the social environment,
manipulating environmental factors in a way that could affect
incidentally-exposed individuals. It is defined in broad terms in order
to embrace field studies of pathogenic organisms and toxic chemicals
under investigation for health-related purposes.
Biomedical research with human subjects is to be distinguished from
the practice of medicine, public health and other forms of health care,
which is designed to contribute directly to the health of individuals or
communities. Prospective subjects may find it confusing when research
and practice are to be conducted simultaneously, as when research is
designed to obtain new information about the efficacy of a drug or
other therapeutic, diagnostic or preventive modality.
As stated in Paragraph 32 of the Declaration of Helsinki, ‘‘In the
treatment of a patient, where proven prophylactic, diagnostic and
therapeutic methods do not exist or have been ineffective, the
physician, with informed consent from the patient, must be free to use
unproven or new prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic measures,
if in the physician’s judgement it offers hope of saving life, re-
establishing health or alleviating suffering. Where possible, these
measures should be made the object of research, designed to evaluate
their safety and efficacy. In all cases, new information should be
recorded and, where appropriate, published. The other relevant
guidelines of this Declaration should be followed.’’
Professionals whose roles combine investigation and treatment
have a special obligation to protect the rights and welfare of the
patient-subjects. An investigator who agrees to act as physician-
investigator undertakes some or all of the legal and ethical
responsibilities of the subject’s primary-care physician. In such a
case, if the subject withdraws from the research owing to complica-
tions related to the research or in the exercise of the right to withdraw
without loss of benefit, the physician has an obligation to continue to
provide medical care, or to see that the subject receives the necessary
care in the health-care system, or to offer assistance in finding another
physician.
Research with human subjects should be carried out only by, or
strictly supervised by, suitably qualified and experienced investigators
PREAMBLE 21
and in accordance with a protocol that clearly states: the aim of the
research; the reasons for proposing that it involve human subjects; the
nature and degree of any known risks to the subjects; the sources from
which it is proposed to recruit subjects; and the means proposed for
ensuring that subjects’ consent will be adequately informed and
voluntary. The protocol should be scientifically and ethically
appraised by one or more suitably constituted review bodies,
independent of the investigators.
New vaccines and medicinal drugs, before being approved for
general use, must be tested on human subjects in clinical trials; such
trials constitute a substantial part of all research involving human
subjects.
The Guidelines
Guideline 1
Ethical justification and scientific validity of
biomedical research involving human beings
The ethical justification of biomedical research involving human
subjects is the prospect of discovering new ways of benefiting
people’s health. Such research can be ethically justifiable only if
it is carried out in ways that respect and protect, and are fair to,
the subjects of that research and are morally acceptable within
the communities in which the research is carried out. Moreover,
because scientifically invalid research is unethical in that it
exposes research subjects to risks without possible benefit,
investigators and sponsors must ensure that proposed studies
involving human subjects conform to generally accepted
scientific principles and are based on adequate knowledge of
the pertinent scientific literature.
Commentary on Guideline 1
Among the essential features of ethically justified research involving
human subjects, including research with identifiable human tissue or
data, are that the research offers a means of developing information
not otherwise obtainable, that the design of the research is scientifically
sound, and that the investigators and other research personnel are
competent. The methods to be used should be appropriate to the
objectives of the research and the field of study. Investigators and
sponsors must also ensure that all who participate in the conduct of the
research are qualified by virtue of their education and experience to
perform competently in their roles. These considerations should be
adequately reflected in the research protocol submitted for review and
clearance to scientific and ethical review committees (Appendix 1).
Scientific review is discussed further in the Commentaries to
Guidelines 2 and 3: Ethical review committees and Ethical review of
externally sponsored research. Other ethical aspects of research are

discussed in the remaining guidelines and their commentaries. The
protocol designed for submission for review and clearance to scientific
and ethical review committees should include, when relevant, the
items specified in Appendix 1, and should be carefully followed in
conducting the research.
Guideline 2
Ethical review committees
All proposals to conduct research involving human subjects
must be submitted for review of their scientific merit and ethical
acceptability to one or more scientific review and ethical review
committees. The review committees must be independent of
the research team, and any direct financial or other material
benefit they may derive from the research should not be
contingent on the outcome of their review. The investigator
must obtain their approval or clearance before undertaking the
research. The ethical review committee should conduct further
reviews as necessary in the course of the research, including
monitoring of its progress.
Ethical review committees may function at the institutional, local,
regional, or national level, and in some cases at the international level.
The regulatory or other governmental authorities concerned should
promote uniform standards across committees within a country, and,
under all systems, sponsors of research and institutions in which the
investigators are employed should allocate sufficient resources to the
review process. Ethical review committees may receive money for the
activity of reviewing protocols, but under no circumstances may
payment be offered or accepted for a review committee’s approval or
clearance of a protocol.
Scientific review. According to the Declaration of Helsinki (Para-

graph 11), medical research involving humans must conform to
generally accepted scientific principles, and be based on a thorough
THE GUIDELINES 25
knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant sources of

information, and adequate laboratory and, where indicated, animal
experimentation. Scientific review must consider, inter alia, the study
design, including the provisions for avoiding or minimizing risk and
for monitoring safety. Committees competent to review and approve
scientific aspects of research proposals must be multidisciplinary.
Ethical review. The ethical review committee is responsible for

safeguarding the rights, safety, and well-being of the research subjects.
Scientific review and ethical review cannot be separated: scientifically
unsound research involving humans as subjects is ipso facto unethical in
that it may expose them to risk or inconvenience to no purpose; even if
there is no risk of injury, wasting of subjects’ and researchers’ time in
unproductive activities represents loss of a valuable resource. Normally,
therefore, an ethical review committee considers both the scientific and
the ethical aspects of proposed research. It must either carry out or
arrange for a proper scientific review or verify that a competent expert
body has determined that the research is scientifically sound. Also, it
considers provisions for monitoring of data and safety.
If the ethical review committee finds a research proposal scientifically
sound, or verifies that a competent expert body has found it so, it should
then consider whether any known or possible risks to the subjects are
justified by the expected benefits, direct or indirect, and whether the
proposed research methods will minimize harm and maximize benefit.
(See Guideline 8: Benefits and risks of study participation.) If the proposal
is sound and the balance of risks to anticipated benefits is reasonable, the
committee should then determine whether the procedures proposed for
obtaining informed consent are satisfactory and those proposed for the
selection of subjects are equitable.
Ethical review of emergency compassionate use of an investigational

therapy. In some countries, drug regulatory authorities require that
the so-called compassionate or humanitarian use of an investigational
treatment be reviewed by an ethical review committee as though it were
research. Exceptionally, a physician may undertake the compassio-
nate use of an investigational therapy before obtaining the approval or
clearance of an ethical review committee, provided three criteria are
met: a patient needs emergency treatment, there is some evidence of
possible effectiveness of the investigational treatment, and there is no
other treatment available that is known to be equally effective or

superior. Informed consent should be obtained according to the legal
requirements and cultural standards of the community in which the
intervention is carried out. Within one week the physician must report
to the ethical review committee the details of the case and the action
taken, and an independent health-care professional must confirm in
writing to the ethical review committee the treating physician’s
judgment that the use of the investigational intervention was justified
according to the three specified criteria. (See also Guideline 13
Commentary section: Other vulnerable groups.)
National (centralized) or local review. Ethical review committees may

be created under the aegis of national or local health administrations,
national (or centralized) medical research councils or other nationally
representative bodies. In a highly centralized administration a
national, or centralized, review committee may be constituted for
both the scientific and the ethical review of research protocols. In
countries where medical research is not centrally administered, ethical
review is more effectively and conveniently undertaken at a local or
regional level. The authority of a local ethical review committee may
be confined to a single institution or may extend to all institutions in
which biomedical research is carried out within a defined geographical
area. The basic responsibilities of ethical review committees are:
7 to determine that all proposed interventions, particularly the
administration of drugs and vaccines or the use of medical
devices or procedures under development, are acceptably safe
to be undertaken in humans or to verify that another competent
expert body has done so;
7 to determine that the proposed research is scientifically sound
or to verify that another competent expert body has done so;
7 to ensure that all other ethical concerns arising from a protocol
are satisfactorily resolved both in principle and in practice;
7 to consider the qualifications of the investigators, including
education in the principles of research practice, and the
conditions of the research site with a view to ensuring the safe
conduct of the trial; and
7 to keep records of decisions and take measures to follow up on
the conduct of ongoing research projects.
THE GUIDELINES 27
Committee membership. National or local ethical review committees

should be so composed as to be able to provide complete and adequate
review of the research proposals submitted to them. It is generally
presumed that their membership should include physicians, scientists
and other professionals such as nurses, lawyers, ethicists and clergy, as
well as lay persons qualified to represent the cultural and moral values
of the community and to ensure that the rights of the research subjects
will be respected. They should include both men and women. When
uneducated or illiterate persons form the focus of a study they should
also be considered for membership or invited to be represented and
have their views expressed.
A number of members should be replaced periodically with the aim
of blending the advantages of experience with those of fresh
perspectives.
A national or local ethical review committee responsible for
reviewing and approving proposals for externally sponsored research
should have among its members or consultants persons who are
thoroughly familiar with the customs and traditions of the population
or community concerned and sensitive to issues of human dignity.
Committees that often review research proposals directed at
specific diseases or impairments, such as HIV/AIDS or paraplegia,
should invite or hear the views of individuals or bodies representing
patients with such diseases or impairments. Similarly, for research
involving such subjects as children, students, elderly persons or
employees, committees should invite or hear the views of their
representatives or advocates.
To maintain the review committee’s independence from the
investigators and sponsors and to avoid conflict of interest, any
member with a special or particular, direct or indirect, interest in a
proposal should not take part in its assessment if that interest could
subvert the member’s objective judgment. Members of ethical review
committees should be held to the same standard of disclosure as
scientific and medical research staff with regard to financial or other
interests that could be construed as conflicts of interest. A practical
way of avoiding such conflict of interest is for the committee to insist
on a declaration of possible conflict of interest by any of its members.
A member who makes such a declaration should then withdraw, if to
do so is clearly the appropriate action to take, either at the member’s
own discretion or at the request of the other members. Before

withdrawing, the member should be permitted to offer comments on
the protocol or to respond to questions of other members.
Multi-centre research. Some research projects are designed to be

conducted in a number of centres in different communities or countries.
Generally, to ensure that the results will be valid, the study must be
conducted in an identical way at each centre. Such studies include
clinical trials, research designed for the evaluation of health service
programmes, and various kinds of epidemiological research. For such
studies, local ethical or scientific review committees are not normally
authorized to change doses of drugs, to change inclusion or exclusion
criteria, or to make other similar modifications. They should be fully
empowered to prevent a study that they believe to be unethical.
Moreover, changes that local review committees believe are necessary to
protect the research subjects should be documented and reported to the
research institution or sponsor responsible for the whole research
programme for consideration and due action, to ensure that all other
subjects can be protected and that the research will be valid across sites.
To ensure the validity of multi-centre research, any change in the
protocol should be made at every collaborating centre or institution,
or, failing this, explicit inter-centre comparability procedures must be
introduced; changes made at some but not all will defeat the purpose
of multi-centre research. For some multi-centre studies, scientific and
ethical review may be facilitated by agreement among centres to
accept the conclusions of a single review committee; its members
could include a representative of the ethical review committee at each
of the centres at which the research is to be conducted, as well as
individuals competent to conduct scientific review. In other circum-
stances, a centralized review may be complemented by local review
relating to the local participating investigators and institutions. The
central committee could review the study from a scientific and ethical
standpoint, and the local committees could verify the practicability of
the study in their communities, including the infrastructures, the state
of training, and ethical considerations of local significance.
In a large multi-centre trial, individual investigators will not have
authority to act independently, with regard to data analysis or to
preparation and publication of manuscripts, for instance. Such a trial
THE GUIDELINES 29
usually has a set of committees which operate under the direction of a

steering committee and are responsible for such functions and
decisions. The function of the ethical review committee in such cases
is to review the relevant plans with the aim of avoiding abuses.
Sanctions. Ethical review committees generally have no authority to

impose sanctions on researchers who violate ethical standards in the
conduct of research involving humans. They may, however, withdraw
ethical approval of a research project if judged necessary. They should
be required to monitor the implementation of an approved protocol
and its progression, and to report to institutional or governmental
authorities any serious or continuing non-compliance with ethical
standards as they are reflected in protocols that they have approved or
in the conduct of the studies. Failure to submit a protocol to the
committee should be considered a clear and serious violation of
ethical standards.
Sanctions imposed by governmental, institutional, professional or
other authorities possessing disciplinary power should be employed as a
last resort. Preferred methods of control include cultivation of an
atmosphere of mutual trust, and education and support to promote in
researchers and in sponsors the capacity for ethical conduct of research.
Should sanctions become necessary, they should be directed at the
non-compliant researchers or sponsors. They may include fines or
suspension of eligibility to receive research funding, to use investiga-
tional interventions, or to practise medicine. Unless there are persuasive
reasons to do otherwise, editors should refuse to publish the results of
research conducted unethically, and retract any articles that are
subsequently found to contain falsified or fabricated data or to have
been based on unethical research. Drug regulatory authorities should
consider refusal to accept unethically obtained data submitted in
support of an application for authorization to market a product. Such
sanctions, however, may deprive of benefit not only the errant researcher
or sponsor but also that segment of society intended to benefit from the
research; such possible consequences merit careful consideration.
Potential conflicts of interest related to project support. Increasingly,

biomedical studies receive funding from commercial firms. Such
sponsors have good reasons to support research methods that are
ethically and scientifically acceptable, but cases have arisen in which the
conditions of funding could have introduced bias. It may happen that
investigators have little or no input into trial design, limited access to the
raw data, or limited participation in data interpretation, or that the
results of a clinical trial may not be published if they are unfavourable to
the sponsor’s product. This risk of bias may also be associated with other
sources of support, such as government or foundations. As the persons
directly responsible for their work, investigators should not enter into
agreements that interfere unduly with their access to the data or their
ability to analyse the data independently, to prepare manuscripts, or to
publish them. Investigators must also disclose potential or apparent
conflicts of interest on their part to the ethical review committee or to
other institutional committees designed to evaluate and manage such
conflicts. Ethical review committees should therefore ensure that these
conditions are met. See also Multi-centre research, above.
Guideline 3
Ethical review of externally
sponsored research
An external sponsoring organization and individual investigators
should submit the research protocol for ethical and scientific
review in the country of the sponsoring organization, and the
ethical standards applied should be no less stringent than they
would be for research carried out in that country. The health
authorities of the host country, as well as a national or local ethical
review committee, should ensure that the proposed research is
responsive to the health needs and priorities of the host country
and meets the requisite ethical standards.
Definition. The term externally sponsored research refers to research
undertaken in a host country but sponsored, financed, and sometimes
wholly or partly carried out by an external international or national
organization or pharmaceutical company with the collaboration or
agreement of the appropriate authorities, institutions and personnel
of the host country.
THE GUIDELINES 31
Ethical and scientific review. Committees in both the country of the

sponsor and the host country have responsibility for conducting both
scientific and ethical review, as well as the authority to withhold
approval of research proposals that fail to meet their scientific or ethical
standards. As far as possible, there must be assurance that the review is
independent and that there is no conflict of interest that might affect the
judgement of members of the review committees in relation to any
aspect of the research. When the external sponsor is an international
organization, its review of the research protocol must be in accordance
with its own independent ethical-review procedures and standards.
Committees in the external sponsoring country or international
organization have a special responsibility to determine whether the
scientific methods are sound and suitable to the aims of the research;
whether the drugs, vaccines, devices or procedures to be studied meet
adequate standards of safety; whether there is sound justification for
conducting the research in the host country rather than in the country
of the external sponsor or in another country; and whether the
proposed research is in compliance with the ethical standards of the
external sponsoring country or international organization.
Committees in the host country have a special responsibility to
determine whether the objectives of the research are responsive to the
health needs and priorities of that country. The ability to judge the
ethical acceptability of various aspects of a research proposal requires
a thorough understanding of a community’s customs and traditions.
The ethical review committee in the host country, therefore, must have
as either members or consultants persons with such understanding; it
will then be in a favourable position to determine the acceptability of
the proposed means of obtaining informed consent and otherwise
respecting the rights of prospective subjects as well as of the means
proposed to protect the welfare of the research subjects. Such persons
should be able, for example, to indicate suitable members of the
community to serve as intermediaries between investigators and
subjects, and to advise on whether material benefits or inducements
may be regarded as appropriate in the light of a community’s gift-
exchange and other customs and traditions.
When a sponsor or investigator in one country proposes to carry
out research in another, the ethical review committees in the two
countries may, by agreement, undertake to review different aspects of
the research protocol. In short, in respect of host countries either with

developed capacity for independent ethical review or in which external
sponsors and investigators are contributing substantially to such
capacity, ethical review in the external, sponsoring country may be
limited to ensuring compliance with broadly stated ethical standards.
The ethical review committee in the host country can be expected to
have greater competence for reviewing the detailed plans for
compliance, in view of its better understanding of the cultural and
moral values of the population in which it is proposed to conduct the
research; it is also likely to be in a better position to monitor
compliance in the course of a study. However, in respect of research in
host countries with inadequate capacity for independent ethical
review, full review by the ethical review committee in the external
sponsoring country or international agency is necessary.
Guideline 4
Individual informed consent
For all biomedical research involving humans the investigator
must obtain the voluntary informed consent of the prospective
subject or, in the case of an individual who is not capable of
giving informed consent, the permission of a legally authorized
representative in accordance with applicable law. Waiver of
informed consent is to be regarded as uncommon and
exceptional, and must in all cases be approved by an ethical
review committee.
General considerations. Informed consent is a decision to participate in
research, taken by a competent individual who has received the
necessary information; who has adequately understood the informa-
tion; and who, after considering the information, has arrived at a
decision without having been subjected to coercion, undue influence
or inducement, or intimidation.
Informed consent is based on the principle that competent
individuals are entitled to choose freely whether to participate in
THE GUIDELINES 33
research. Informed consent protects the individual’s freedom of

choice and respects the individual’s autonomy. As an additional
safeguard, it must always be complemented by independent ethical
review of research proposals. This safeguard of independent review is
particularly important as many individuals are limited in their
capacity to give adequate informed consent; they include young
children, adults with severe mental or behavioural disorders, and
persons who are unfamiliar with medical concepts and technology
(See Guidelines 13, 14, 15).
Process. Obtaining informed consent is a process that is begun when

initial contact is made with a prospective subject and continues
throughout the course of the study. By informing the prospective
subjects, by repetition and explanation, by answering their questions
as they arise, and by ensuring that each individual understands each
procedure, investigators elicit their informed consent and in so doing
manifest respect for their dignity and autonomy. Each individual
must be given as much time as is needed to reach a decision, including
time for consultation with family members or others. Adequate time
and resources should be set aside for informed-consent procedures.
Language. Informing the individual subject must not be simply a

ritual recitation of the contents of a written document. Rather, the
investigator must convey the information, whether orally or in
writing, in language that suits the individual’s level of understanding.
The investigator must bear in mind that the prospective subject’s
ability to understand the information necessary to give informed
consent depends on that individual’s maturity, intelligence, education
and belief system. It depends also on the investigator’s ability and
willingness to communicate with patience and sensitivity.
Comprehension. The investigator must then ensure that the prospec-

tive subject has adequately understood the information. The
investigator should give each one full opportunity to ask questions
and should answer them honestly, promptly and completely. In some
instances the investigator may administer an oral or a written test or
otherwise determine whether the information has been adequately
understood.
Documentation of consent. Consent may be indicated in a number of

ways. The subject may imply consent by voluntary actions, express
consent orally, or sign a consent form. As a general rule, the subject
should sign a consent form, or, in the case of incompetence, a legal
guardian or other duly authorized representative should do so. The
ethical review committee may approve waiver of the requirement of a
signed consent form if the research carries no more than minimal risk
— that is, risk that is no more likely and not greater than that attached
to routine medical or psychological examination — and if the
procedures to be used are only those for which signed consent forms
are not customarily required outside the research context. Such
waivers may also be approved when existence of a signed consent form
would be an unjustified threat to the subject’s confidentiality. In some
cases, particularly when the information is complicated, it is advisable
to give subjects information sheets to retain; these may resemble
consent forms in all respects except that subjects are not required to
sign them. Their wording should be cleared by the ethical review
committee. When consent has been obtained orally, investigators are
responsible for providing documentation or proof of consent.
Waiver of the consent requirement. Investigators should never initiate

research involving human subjects without obtaining each subject’s
informed consent, unless they have received explicit approval to do so
from an ethical review committee. However, when the research design
involves no more than minimal risk and a requirement of individual
informed consent would make the conduct of the research impractic-
able (for example, where the research involves only excerpting data
from subjects’ records), the ethical review committee may waive some
or all of the elements of informed consent.
Renewing consent. When material changes occur in the conditions or

the procedures of a study, and also periodically in long-term studies,
the investigator should once again seek informed consent from the
subjects. For example, new information may have come to light, either
from the study or from other sources, about the risks or benefits of
products being tested or about alternatives to them. Subjects should
be given such information promptly. In many clinical trials, results are
not disclosed to subjects and investigators until the study is concluded.
THE GUIDELINES 35
This is ethically acceptable if an ethical review committee has

approved their non-disclosure.
Cultural considerations. In some cultures an investigator may enter a

community to conduct research or approach prospective subjects for
their individual consent only after obtaining permission from a
community leader, a council of elders, or another designated authority.
Such customs must be respected. In no case, however, may the
permission of a community leader or other authority substitute for
individual informed consent. In some populations the use of a number
of local languages may complicate the communication of information
to potential subjects and the ability of an investigator to ensure that
they truly understand it. Many people in all cultures are unfamiliar
with, or do not readily understand, scientific concepts such as those of
placebo or randomization. Sponsors and investigators should develop
culturally appropriate ways to communicate information that is
necessary for adherence to the standard required in the informed
consent process. Also, they should describe and justify in the research
protocol the procedure they plan to use in communicating information
to subjects. For collaborative research in developing countries the
research project should, if necessary, include the provision of resources
to ensure that informed consent can indeed be obtained legitimately
within different linguistic and cultural settings.
Consent to use for research purposes biological materials (including

genetic material) from subjects in clinical trials. Consent forms for the
research protocol should include a separate section for clinical-trial
subjects who are requested to provide their consent for the use of their
biological specimens for research. Separate consent may be appro-
priate in some cases (e.g., if investigators are requesting permission to
conduct basic research which is not a necessary part of the clinical
trial), but not in others (e.g., the clinical trial requires the use of
subjects’ biological materials).
Use of medical records and biological specimens. Medical records and

biological specimens taken in the course of clinical care may be used for
research without the consent of the patients/subjects only if an ethical
review committee has determined that the research poses minimal risk,
that the rights or interests of the patients will not be violated, that their
privacy and confidentiality or anonymity are assured, and that the

research is designed to answer an important question and would be
impracticable if the requirement for informed consent were to be
imposed. Patients have a right to know that their records or specimens
may be used for research. Refusal or reluctance of individuals to agree
to participate would not be evidence of impracticability sufficient to
warrant waiving informed consent. Records and specimens of
individuals who have specifically rejected such uses in the past may
be used only in the case of public health emergencies. (See Guideline 18
Commentary, Confidentiality between physician and patient).
Secondary use of research records or biological specimens. Investigators

may want to use records or biological specimens that another
investigator has used or collected for use, in another institution in the
same or another country. This raises the issue of whether the records or
specimens contain personal identifiers, or can be linked to such
identifiers, and by whom. (See also Guideline 18: Safeguarding
confidentiality) If informed consent or permission was required to
authorize the original collection or use of such records or specimens for
research purposes, secondary uses are generally constrained by the
conditions specified in the original consent. Consequently, it is essential
that the original consent process anticipate, to the extent that this is
feasible, any foreseeable plans for future use of the records or specimens
for research. Thus, in the original process of seeking informed consent a
member of the research team should discuss with, and, when indicated,
request the permission of, prospective subjects as to:
i) whether there will or could be any secondary use and, if so,
whether such secondary use will be limited with regard to the
type of study that may be performed on such materials;
ii) the conditions under which investigators will be required to
contact the research subjects for additional authorization for
secondary use;
iii) the investigators’ plans, if any, to destroy or to strip of personal
identifiers the records or specimens; and
iv) the rights of subjects to request destruction or anonymization
of biological specimens or of records or parts of records that
they might consider particularly sensitive, such as photo-
graphs, videotapes or audiotapes.
THE GUIDELINES 37
(See also Guidelines 5: Obtaining informed consent: Essential

information for prospective research subjects; 6: Obtaining informed
consent: Obligations of sponsors and investigators; and 7: Inducement
to participate in research.)
Guideline 5
Obtaining informed consent:
Essential information
for prospective research subjects
Before requesting an individual’s consent to participate in
research, the investigator must provide the following
information, in language or another form of communication
that the individual can understand:
1) that the individual is invited to participate in research,
the reasons for considering the individual suitable for
the research, and that participation is voluntary;
2) that the individual is free to refuse to participate and will
be free to withdraw from the research at any time without
penalty or loss of benefits to which he or she would
otherwise be entitled;
3) the purpose of the research, the procedures to be carried
out by the investigator and the subject, and an
explanation of how the research differs from routine
medical care;
4) for controlled trials, an explanation of features of the
research design (e.g., randomization, double-blinding),
and that the subject will not be told of the assigned
treatment until the study has been completed and the
blind has been broken;
5) the expected duration of the individual’s participation
(including number and duration of visits to the research
centre and the total time involved) and the possibility of
early termination of the trial or of the individual’s
participation in it;
6) whether money or other forms of material goods will be
provided in return for the individual’s participation and, if
so, the kind and amount;
7) that, after the completion of the study, subjects will be

informed of the findings of the research in general, and
individual subjects will be informed of any finding that
relates to their particular health status;
8) that subjects have the right of access to their data on
demand, even if these data lack immediate clinical utility
(unless the ethical review committee has approved
temporary or permanent non-disclosure of data, in
which case the subject should be informed of, and
given, the reasons for such non-disclosure);
9) any foreseeable risks, pain or discomfort, or in-
convenience to the individual (or others) associated
with participation in the research, including risks to the
health or well-being of a subject’s spouse or partner;
10) the direct benefits, if any, expected to result to subjects
from participating in the research;
11) the expected benefits of the research to the community
or to society at large, or contributions to scientific
knowledge;
12) whether, when and how any products or interventions
proven by the research to be safe and effective will be
made available to subjects after they have completed
their participation in the research, and whether they will
be expected to pay for them;
13) any currently available alternative interventions or
courses of treatment;
14) the provisions that will be made to ensure respect for the
privacy of subjects and for the confidentiality of records
in which subjects are identified;
15) the limits, legal or other, to the investigators’ ability to
safeguard confidentiality, and the possible conse-
quences of breaches of confidentiality;
16) policy with regard to the use of results of genetic tests
and familial genetic information, and the precautions in
place to prevent disclosure of the results of a subject’s
genetic tests to immediate family relatives or to others
(e.g., insurance companies or employers) without the
consent of the subject;
THE GUIDELINES 39
17) the sponsors of the research, the institutional affiliation

of the investigators, and the nature and sources of
funding for the research;
18) the possible research uses, direct or secondary, of the
subject’s medical records and of biological specimens
taken in the course of clinical care (See also Guidelines 4
and 18 Commentaries);
19) whether it is planned that biological specimens collected
in the research will be destroyed at its conclusion, and, if
not, details about their storage (where, how, for how
long, and final disposition) and possible future use, and
that subjects have the right to decide about such future
use, to refuse storage, and to have the material
destroyed (See Guideline 4 Commentary);
20) whether commercial products may be developed from
biological specimens, and whether the participant will
receive monetary or other benefits from the devel-
opment of such products;
21) whether the investigator is serving only as an investigator
or as both investigator and the subject’s physician;
22) the extent of the investigator’s responsibility to provide
medical services to the participant;
23) that treatment will be provided free of charge for specified
types of research-related injury or for complications
associated with the research, the nature and duration of
such care, the name of the organization or individual that
will provide the treatment, and whether there is any
uncertainty regarding funding of such treatment.
24) in what way, and by what organization, the subject or the
subject’s family or dependants will be compensated for
disability or death resulting from such injury (or, when
indicated, that there are no plans to provide such
compensation);
25) whether or not, in the country in which the prospective
subject is invited to participate in research, the right to
compensation is legally guaranteed;
26) that an ethical review committee has approved or
cleared the research protocol.
Guideline 6
Obtaining informed consent: Obligations
of sponsors and investigators
Sponsors and investigators have a duty to:
7 refrain from unjustified deception, undue influence, or
intimidation;
7 seek consent only after ascertaining that the prospective
subject has adequate understanding of the relevant facts
and of the consequences of participation and has had
sufficient opportunity to consider whether to participate;
7 as a general rule, obtain from each prospective subject a
signed form as evidence of informed consent — investi-
gators should justify any exceptions to this general rule
and obtain the approval of the ethical review committee
(See Guideline 4 Commentary, Documentation of consent);
7 renew the informed consent of each subject if there are
significant changes in the conditions or procedures of the
research or if new information becomes available that
could affect the willingness of subjects to continue to
participate; and,
7 renew the informed consent of each subject in long-term
studies at pre-determined intervals, even if there are no
changes in the design or objectives of the research.
The investigator is responsible for ensuring the adequacy of informed
consent from each subject. The person obtaining informed consent
should be knowledgeable about the research and capable of answering
questions from prospective subjects. Investigators in charge of the
study must make themselves available to answer questions at the
request of subjects. Any restrictions on the subject’s opportunity to
ask questions and receive answers before or during the research
undermines the validity of the informed consent.
In some types of research, potential subjects should receive
counselling about risks of acquiring a disease unless they take
THE GUIDELINES 41
precautions. This is especially true of HIV/AIDS vaccine research (see

the UNAIDS Guidance Document Ethical Considerations in HIV
Preventive Vaccine Research, Guidance Point 14).
Withholding information and deception. Sometimes, to ensure the

validity of research, investigators withhold certain information in the
consent process. In biomedical research, this typically takes the form
of withholding information about the purpose of specific procedures.
For example, subjects in clinical trials are often not told the purpose of
tests performed to monitor their compliance with the protocol, since if
they knew their compliance was being monitored they might modify
their behaviour and hence invalidate results. In most such cases, the
prospective subjects are asked to consent to remain uninformed of the
purpose of some procedures until the research is completed; after the
conclusion of the study they are given the omitted information. In
other cases, because a request for permission to withhold some
information would jeopardize the validity of the research, subjects are
not told that some information has been withheld until the research
has been completed. Any such procedure must receive the explicit
approval of the ethical review committee.
Active deception of subjects is considerably more controversial
than simply withholding certain information. Lying to subjects is a
tactic not commonly employed in biomedical research. Social and
behavioural scientists, however, sometimes deliberately misinform
subjects to study their attitudes and behaviour. For example, scientists
have pretended to be patients to study the behaviour of health-care
professionals and patients in their natural settings.
Some people maintain that active deception is never permissible.
Others would permit it in certain circumstances. Deception is not
permissible, however, in cases in which the deception itself would
disguise the possibility of the subject being exposed to more than
minimal risk. When deception is deemed indispensable to the methods
of a study the investigators must demonstrate to an ethical review
committee that no other research method would suffice; that
significant advances could result from the research; and that nothing
has been withheld that, if divulged, would cause a reasonable person
to refuse to participate. The ethical review committee should
determine the consequences for the subject of being deceived, and
whether and how deceived subjects should be informed of the

deception upon completion of the research. Such informing,
commonly called ‘‘debriefing’’, ordinarily entails explaining the
reasons for the deception. A subject who disapproves of having been
deceived should be offered an opportunity to refuse to allow the
investigator to use information thus obtained. Investigators and
ethical review committees should be aware that deceiving research
subjects may wrong them as well as harm them; subjects may resent
not having been informed when they learn that they have participated
in a study under false pretences. In some studies there may be
justification for deceiving persons other than the subjects by either
withholding or disguising elements of information. Such tactics are
often proposed, for example, for studies of the abuse of spouses or
children. An ethical review committee must review and approve all
proposals to deceive persons other than the subjects. Subjects are
entitled to prompt and honest answers to their questions; the ethical
review committee must determine for each study whether others who
are to be deceived are similarly entitled.
Intimidation and undue influence. Intimidation in any form invalidates

informed consent. Prospective subjects who are patients often depend
for medical care upon the physician/investigator, who consequently
has a certain credibility in their eyes, and whose influence over them
may be considerable, particularly if the study protocol has a
therapeutic component. They may fear, for example, that refusal to
participate would damage the therapeutic relationship or result in the
withholding of health services. The physician/investigator must assure
them that their decision on whether to participate will not affect the
therapeutic relationship or other benefits to which they are entitled. In
this situation the ethical review committee should consider whether a
neutral third party should seek informed consent.
The prospective subject must not be exposed to undue influence.
The borderline between justifiable persuasion and undue influence is
imprecise, however. The researcher should give no unjustifiable
assurances about the benefits, risks or inconveniences of the research,
for example, or induce a close relative or a community leader to
influence a prospective subject’s decision. See also Guideline 4:
Individual informed consent.
THE GUIDELINES 43
Risks. Investigators should be completely objective in discussing the

details of the experimental intervention, the pain and discomfort that
it may entail, and known risks and possible hazards. In complex
research projects it may be neither feasible nor desirable to inform
prospective participants fully about every possible risk. They must,
however, be informed of all risks that a ‘reasonable person’ would
consider material to making a decision about whether to participate,
including risks to a spouse or partner associated with trials of, for
example, psychotropic or genital-tract medicaments. (See also
Guideline 8 Commentary, Risks to groups of persons.)
Exception to the requirement for informed consent in studies of

emergency situations in which the researcher anticipates that many
subjects will be unable to consent. Research protocols are sometimes
designed to address conditions occurring suddenly and rendering the
patients/subjects incapable of giving informed consent. Examples are
head trauma, cardiopulmonary arrest and stroke. The investigation
cannot be done with patients who can give informed consent in time
and there may not be time to locate a person having the authority to
give permission. In such circumstances it is often necessary to proceed
with the research interventions very soon after the onset of the
condition in order to evaluate an investigational treatment or develop
the desired knowledge. As this class of emergency exception can be
anticipated, the researcher must secure the review and approval of an
ethical review committee before initiating the study. If possible, an
attempt should be made to identify a population that is likely to
develop the condition to be studied. This can be done readily, for
example, if the condition is one that recurs periodically in individuals;
examples include grand mal seizures and alcohol binges. In such cases,
prospective subjects should be contacted while fully capable of
informed consent, and invited to consent to their involvement as
research subjects during future periods of incapacitation. If they are
patients of an independent physician who is also the physician-
researcher, the physician should likewise seek their consent while they
are fully capable of informed consent. In all cases in which approved
research has begun without prior consent of patients/subjects
incapable of giving informed consent because of suddenly occurring
conditions, they should be given all relevant information as soon as
they are in a state to receive it, and their consent to continued

participation should be obtained as soon as is reasonably possible.
Before proceeding without prior informed consent, the investiga-
tor must make reasonable efforts to locate an individual who has the
authority to give permission on behalf of an incapacitated patient. If
such a person can be located and refuses to give permission, the
patient may not be enrolled as a subject. The risks of all interventions
and procedures will be justified as required by Guideline 9 (Special
limitations on risks when research involves individuals who are not
capable of giving consent.). The researcher and the ethical review
committee should agree to a maximum time of involvement of an
individual without obtaining either the individual’s informed consent
or authorization according to the applicable legal system if the person
is not able to give consent. If by that time the researcher has not
obtained either consent or permission — owing either to a failure to
contact a representative or a refusal of either the patient or the person
or body authorized to give permission — the participation of the
patient as a subject must be discontinued. The patient or the person or
body providing authorization should be offered an opportunity to
forbid the use of data derived from participation of the patient as a
subject without consent or permission.
Where appropriate, plans to conduct emergency research without
prior consent of the subjects should be publicized within the community
in which it will be carried out. In the design and conduct of the research,
the ethical review committee, the investigators and the sponsors should
be responsive to the concerns of the community. If there is cause for
concern about the acceptability of the research in the community, there
should be a formal consultation with representatives designated by the
community. The research should not be carried out if it does not have
substantial support in the community concerned. (See Guideline 8
Commentary, Risks to groups of persons.)
Exception to the requirement of informed consent for inclusion in clinical

trials of persons rendered incapable of informed consent by an acute
condition. Certain patients with an acute condition that renders them
incapable of giving informed consent may be eligible for inclusion in a
clinical trial in which the majority of prospective subjects will be capable
of informed consent. Such a trial would relate to a new treatment for an
THE GUIDELINES 45
acute condition such as sepsis, stroke or myocardial infarction. The

investigational treatment would hold out the prospect of direct benefit
and would be justified accordingly, though the investigation might
involve certain procedures or interventions that were not of direct
benefit but carried no more than minimal risk; an example would be the
process of randomization or the collection of additional blood for
research purposes. For such cases the initial protocol submitted for
approval to the ethical review committee should anticipate that some
patients may be incapable of consent, and should propose for such
patients a form of proxy consent, such as permission of the responsible
relative. When the ethical review committee has approved or cleared
such a protocol, an investigator may seek the permission of the
responsible relative and enrol such a patient.
Guideline 7
Inducement to participate in research
Subjects may be reimbursed for lost earnings, travel costs and
other expenses incurred in taking part in a study; they may also
receive free medical services. Subjects, particularly those who
receive no direct benefit from research, may also be paid or
otherwise compensated for inconvenience and time spent. The
payments should not be so large, however, or the medical
services so extensive as to induce prospective subjects to
consent to participate in the research against their better
judgment (‘‘undue inducement’’). All payments, reimbursements
and medical services provided to research subjects must have
been approved by an ethical review committee.
Acceptable recompense. Research subjects may be reimbursed for their
transport and other expenses, including lost earnings, associated with
their participation in research. Those who receive no direct benefit
from the research may also receive a small sum of money for
inconvenience due to their participation in the research. All subjects
may receive medical services unrelated to the research and have
procedures and tests performed free of charge.
Unacceptable recompense. Payments in money or in kind to research

subjects should not be so large as to persuade them to take undue risks
or volunteer against their better judgment. Payments or rewards that
undermine a person’s capacity to exercise free choice invalidate
consent. It may be difficult to distinguish between suitable recom-
pense and undue influence to participate in research. An unemployed
person or a student may view promised recompense differently from
an employed person. Someone without access to medical care may or
may not be unduly influenced to participate in research simply to
receive such care. A prospective subject may be induced to participate
in order to obtain a better diagnosis or access to a drug not otherwise
available; local ethical review committees may find such inducements
acceptable. Monetary and in-kind recompense must, therefore, be
evaluated in the light of the traditions of the particular culture and
population in which they are offered, to determine whether they
constitute undue influence. The ethical review committee will
ordinarily be the best judge of what constitutes reasonable material
recompense in particular circumstances. When research interventions
or procedures that do not hold out the prospect of direct benefit
present more than minimal risk, all parties involved in the research —
sponsors, investigators and ethical review committees — in both
funding and host countries should be careful to avoid undue material
inducement.
Incompetent persons. Incompetent persons may be vulnerable to

exploitation for financial gain by guardians. A guardian asked to
give permission on behalf of an incompetent person should be
offered no recompense other than a refund of travel and related
expenses.
Withdrawal from a study. A subject who withdraws from research for

reasons related to the study, such as unacceptable side-effects of a
study drug, or who is withdrawn on health grounds, should be paid or
recompensed as if full participation had taken place. A subject who
withdraws for any other reason should be paid in proportion to the
amount of participation. An investigator who must remove a subject
from the study for wilful noncompliance is entitled to withhold part or
all of the payment.
THE GUIDELINES 47
Guideline 8
Benefits and risks of study participation
For all biomedical research involving human subjects, the
investigator must ensure that potential benefits and risks are
reasonably balanced and risks are minimized.
. Interventions or procedures that hold out the prospect of
direct diagnostic, therapeutic or preventive benefit for the
individual subject must be justified by the expectation that they
will be at least as advantageous to the individual subject, in the
light of foreseeable risks and benefits, as any available
alternative. Risks of such ’beneficial’ interventions or
procedures must be justified in relation to expected benefits
to the individual subject.
. Risks of interventions that do not hold out the prospect of
direct diagnostic, therapeutic or preventive benefit for the
individual must be justified in relation to the expected benefits
to society (generalizable knowledge). The risks presented by
such interventions must be reasonable in relation to the
importance of the knowledge to be gained.
The Declaration of Helsinki in several paragraphs deals with the well-
being of research subjects and the avoidance of risk. Thus,
considerations related to the well-being of the human subject should
take precedence over the interests of science and society (Paragraph 5);
clinical testing must be preceded by adequate laboratory or animal
experimentation to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success
without undue risk (Paragraph 11); every project should be preceded
by careful assessment of predictable risks and burdens in comparison
with foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others (Paragraph 16);
physician-researchers must be confident that the risks involved have
been adequately assessed and can be satisfactorily managed (Para-
graph 17); and the risks and burdens to the subject must be minimized,
and reasonable in relation to the importance of the objective or the
knowledge to be gained (Paragraph 18).
Biomedical research often employs a variety of interventions of
which some hold out the prospect of direct therapeutic benefit
(beneficial interventions) and others are administered solely to answer

the research question (non-beneficial interventions). Beneficial inter-
ventions are justified as they are in medical practice by the expectation
that they will be at least as advantageous to the individuals concerned, in
the light of both risks and benefits, as any available alternative. Non-
beneficial interventions are assessed differently; they may be justified
only by appeal to the knowledge to be gained. In assessing the risks and
benefits that a protocol presents to a population, it is appropriate to
consider the harm that could result from forgoing the research.
Paragraphs 5 and 18 of the Declaration of Helsinki do not preclude
well-informed volunteers, capable of fully appreciating risks and
benefits of an investigation, from participating in research for
altruistic reasons or for modest remuneration.
Minimizing risk associated with participation in a randomized

controlled trial. In randomized controlled trials subjects risk being
allocated to receive the treatment that proves inferior. They are
allocated by chance to one of two or more intervention arms and
followed to a predetermined end-point. (Interventions are understood
to include new or established therapies, diagnostic tests and
preventive measures.) An intervention is evaluated by comparing it
with another intervention (a control), which is ordinarily the best
current method, selected from the safe and effective treatments
available globally, unless some other control intervention such as
placebo can be justified ethically (See Guideline 11).
To minimize risk when the intervention to be tested in a
randomized controlled trial is designed to prevent or postpone a
lethal or disabling outcome, the investigator must not, for purposes of
conducting the trial, withhold therapy that is known to be superior to
the intervention being tested, unless the withholding can be justified
by the standards set forth in Guideline 11. Also, the investigator must
provide in the research protocol for the monitoring of research data
by an independent board (Data and Safety Monitoring Board); one
function of such a board is to protect the research subjects from
previously unknown adverse reactions or unnecessarily prolonged
exposure to an inferior therapy. Normally at the outset of a
randomized controlled trial, criteria are established for its premature
termination (stopping rules or guidelines).
THE GUIDELINES 49
Risks to groups of persons. Research in certain fields, such as

epidemiology, genetics or sociology, may present risks to the interests
of communities, societies, or racially or ethnically defined groups.
Information might be published that could stigmatize a group or
expose its members to discrimination. Such information, for example,
could indicate, rightly or wrongly, that the group has a higher than
average prevalence of alcoholism, mental illness or sexually transmitted
disease, or is particularly susceptible to certain genetic disorders. Plans
to conduct such research should be sensitive to such considerations, to
the need to maintain confidentiality during and after the study, and to
the need to publish the resulting data in a manner that is respectful of
the interests of all concerned, or in certain circumstances not to publish
them. The ethical review committee should ensure that the interests of
all concerned are given due consideration; often it will be advisable to
have individual consent supplemented by community consultation.
[The ethical basis for the justification of risk is elaborated further in
Guideline 9]
Guideline 9
Special limitations on risk when research
involves individuals who are not capable
of giving informed consent
When there is ethical and scientific justification to conduct
research with individuals incapable of giving informed
consent, the risk from research interventions that do not hold
out the prospect of direct benefit for the individual subject
should be no more likely and not greater than the risk attached
to routine medical or psychological examination of such
persons. Slight or minor increases above such risk may be
permitted when there is an overriding scientific or medical
rationale for such increases and when an ethical review
committee has approved them.
The low-risk standard: Certain individuals or groups may have limited
capacity to give informed consent either because, as in the case of
prisoners, their autonomy is limited, or because they have limited

cognitive capacity. For research involving persons who are unable to
consent, or whose capacity to make an informed choice may not fully
meet the standard of informed consent, ethical review committees
must distinguish between intervention risks that do not exceed those
associated with routine medical or psychological examination of such
persons and risks in excess of those.
When the risks of such interventions do not exceed those associated
with routine medical or psychological examination of such persons,
there is no requirement for special substantive or procedural protective
measures apart from those generally required for all research involving
members of the particular class of persons. When the risks are in excess
of those, the ethical review committee must find: 1) that the research is
designed to be responsive to the disease affecting the prospective
subjects or to conditions to which they are particularly susceptible;
2) that the risks of the research interventions are only slightly greater
than those associated with routine medical or psychological examina-
tion of such persons for the condition or set of clinical circumstances
under investigation; 3) that the objective of the research is sufficiently
important to justify exposure of the subjects to the increased risk; and 4)
that the interventions are reasonably commensurate with the clinical
interventions that the subjects have experienced or may be expected to
experience in relation to the condition under investigation.
If such research subjects, including children, become capable of
giving independent informed consent during the research, their
consent to continued participation should be obtained.
There is no internationally agreed, precise definition of a ‘‘slight or
minor increase’’ above the risks associated with routine medical or
psychological examination of such persons. Its meaning is inferred
from what various ethical review committees have reported as having
met the standard. Examples include additional lumbar punctures or
bone-marrow aspirations in children with conditions for which such
examinations are regularly indicated in clinical practice. The
requirement that the objective of the research be relevant to the
disease or condition affecting the prospective subjects rules out the use
of such interventions in healthy children.
The requirement that the research interventions be reasonably
commensurate with clinical interventions that subjects may have
THE GUIDELINES 51
experienced or are likely to experience for the condition under

investigation is intended to enable them to draw on personal experience
as they decide whether to accept or reject additional procedures for
research purposes. Their choices will, therefore, be more informed even
though they may not fully meet the standard of informed consent.
(See also Guidelines 4: Individual informed consent; 13: Research
involving vulnerable persons; 14: Research involving children; and 15:
Research involving individuals who by reason of mental or behavioural
disorders are not capable of giving adequately informed consent.)
Guideline 10
Research in populations and communities
with limited resources
Before undertaking research in a population or community with
limited resources, the sponsor and the investigator must make
every effort to ensure that:
7 the research is responsive to the health needs and the
priorities of the population or community in which it is to
be carried out; and
7 any intervention or product developed, or knowledge
generated, will be made reasonably available for the
benefit of that population or community.
This guideline is concerned with countries or communities in which
resources are limited to the extent that they are, or may be, vulnerable
to exploitation by sponsors and investigators from the relatively
wealthy countries and communities.
Responsiveness of research to health needs and priorities. The ethical

requirement that research be responsive to the health needs of the
population or community in which it is carried out calls for decisions on
what is needed to fulfil the requirement. It is not sufficient simply to
determine that a disease is prevalent in the population and that new or
further research is needed: the ethical requirement of ‘‘responsiveness’’
can be fulfilled only if successful interventions or other kinds of health
benefit are made available to the population. This is applicable especially

to research conducted in countries where governments lack the resources
to make such products or benefits widely available. Even when a product
to be tested in a particular country is much cheaper than the standard
treatment in some other countries, the government or individuals in that
country may still be unable to afford it. If the knowledge gained from the
research in such a country is used primarily for the benefit of populations
that can afford the tested product, the research may rightly be
characterized as exploitative and, therefore, unethical.
When an investigational intervention has important potential for
health care in the host country, the negotiation that the sponsor
should undertake to determine the practical implications of ‘‘respon-
siveness’’, as well as ‘‘reasonable availability’’, should include
representatives of stakeholders in the host country; these include the
national government, the health ministry, local health authorities, and
concerned scientific and ethics groups, as well as representatives of the
communities from which subjects are drawn and non-governmental
organizations such as health advocacy groups. The negotiation
should cover the health-care infrastructure required for safe and
rational use of the intervention, the likelihood of authorization for
distribution, and decisions regarding payments, royalties, subsidies,
technology and intellectual property, as well as distribution costs,
when this economic information is not proprietary. In some cases,
satisfactory discussion of the availability and distribution of
successful products will necessarily engage international organiza-
tions, donor governments and bilateral agencies, international
nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. The devel-
opment of a health-care infrastructure should be facilitated at the
onset so that it can be of use during and beyond the conduct of the
research.
Additionally, if an investigational drug has been shown to be
beneficial, the sponsor should continue to provide it to the subjects
after the conclusion of the study, and pending its approval by a drug
regulatory authority. The sponsor is unlikely to be in a position to
make a beneficial investigational intervention generally available to
the community or population until some time after the conclusion of
the study, as it may be in short supply and in any case cannot be made
generally available before a drug regulatory authority has approved it.
THE GUIDELINES 53
For minor research studies and when the outcome is scientific

knowledge rather than a commercial product, such complex planning
or negotiation is rarely, if ever, needed. There must be assurance,
however, that the scientific knowledge developed will be used for the
benefit of the population.
Reasonable availability. The issue of ‘‘reasonable availability’’ is

complex and will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Relevant considerations include the length of time for which the
intervention or product developed, or other agreed benefit, will be
made available to research subjects, or to the community or
population concerned; the severity of a subject’s medical condition;
the effect of withdrawing the study drug (e.g., death of a subject); the
cost to the subject or health service; and the question of undue
inducement if an intervention is provided free of charge.
In general, if there is good reason to believe that a product
developed or knowledge generated by research is unlikely to be
reasonably available to, or applied to the benefit of, the population of
a proposed host country or community after the conclusion of the
research, it is unethical to conduct the research in that country or
community. This should not be construed as precluding studies
designed to evaluate novel therapeutic concepts. As a rare exception,
for example, research may be designed to obtain preliminary evidence
that a drug or a class of drugs has a beneficial effect in the treatment of
a disease that occurs only in regions with extremely limited resources,
and it could not be carried out reasonably well in more developed
communities. Such research may be justified ethically even if there is
no plan in place to make a product available to the population of the
host country or community at the conclusion of the preliminary phase
of its development. If the concept is found to be valid, subsequent
phases of the research could result in a product that could be made
reasonably available at its conclusion.
(See also Guidelines 3: Ethical review of externally sponsored
research; 12: Equitable distribution of burdens and benefits; 20:
Strengthening capacity for ethical and scientific review and biomedical
research; and 21: Ethical obligation of external sponsors to provide
health-care services.)
Guideline 11
Choice of control in clinical trials
As a general rule, research subjects in the control group of a
trial of a diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive intervention
should receive an established effective intervention. In some
circumstances it may be ethically acceptable to use an
alternative comparator, such as placebo or ‘‘no treatment’’
Placebo may be used:
7 when there is no established effective intervention;
7 when withholding an established effective intervention
would expose subjects to, at most, temporary discomfort
or delay in relief of symptoms;
7 when use of an established effective intervention as
comparator would not yield scientifically reliable results
and use of placebo would not add any risk of serious or
irreversible harm to the subjects.
General considerations for controlled clinical trials. The design of trials
of investigational diagnostic, therapeutic or preventive interventions
raises interrelated scientific and ethical issues for sponsors, investi-
gators and ethical review committees. To obtain reliable results,
investigators must compare the effects of an investigational interven-
tion on subjects assigned to the investigational arm (or arms) of a trial
with the effects that a control intervention produces in subjects drawn
from the same population and assigned to its control arm.
Randomization is the preferred method for assigning subjects to the
various arms of the clinical trial unless another method, such as
historical or literature controls, can be justified scientifically and
ethically. Assignment to treatment arms by randomization, in
addition to its usual scientific superiority, offers the advantage of
tending to render equivalent to all subjects the foreseeable benefits
and risks of participation in a trial.
A clinical trial cannot be justified ethically unless it is capable of
producing scientifically reliable results. When the objective is to
establish the effectiveness and safety of an investigational intervention,
THE GUIDELINES 55
the use of a placebo control is often much more likely than that of an
active control to produce a scientifically reliable result. In many cases
the ability of a trial to distinguish effective from ineffective
interventions (its assay sensitivity) cannot be assured unless the
control is a placebo. If, however, an effect of using a placebo would be
to deprive subjects in the control arm of an established effective
intervention, and thereby to expose them to serious harm, particularly
if it is irreversible, it would obviously be unethical to use a placebo.
Placebo control in the absence of a current effective alternative. The use of

placebo in the control arm of a clinical trial is ethically acceptable when,
as stated in the Declaration of Helsinki (Paragraph 29), ‘‘no proven
prophylactic, diagnostic or therapeutic method exists.’’ Usually, in this
case, a placebo is scientifically preferable to no intervention. In certain
circumstances, however, an alternative design may be both scientifically
and ethically acceptable, and preferable; an example would be a clinical
trial of a surgical intervention, because, for many surgical interventions,
either it is not possible or it is ethically unacceptable to devise a suitable
placebo; for another example, in certain vaccine trials an investigator
might choose to provide for those in the ‘control’ arm a vaccine that is
unrelated to the investigational vaccine.
Placebo-controlled trials that entail only minor risks. A placebo-

controlled design may be ethically acceptable, and preferable on
scientific grounds, when the condition for which patients/subjects are
randomly assigned to placebo or active treatment is only a small
deviation in physiological measurements, such as slightly raised blood
pressure or a modest increase in serum cholesterol; and if delaying or
omitting available treatment may cause only temporary discomfort (e.g.,
common headache) and no serious adverse consequences. The ethical
review committee must be fully satisfied that the risks of withholding an
established effective intervention are truly minor and short-lived.
Placebo control when active control would not yield reliable results. A
related but distinct rationale for using a placebo control rather than
an established effective intervention is that the documented expe-
rience with the established effective intervention is not sufficient to
provide a scientifically reliable comparison with the intervention
being investigated; it is then difficult, or even impossible, without
using a placebo, to design a scientifically reliable study. This is not

always, however, an ethically acceptable basis for depriving control
subjects of an established effective intervention in clinical trials; only
when doing so would not add any risk of serious harm, particularly
irreversible harm, to the subjects would it be ethically acceptable to do
so. In some cases, the condition at which the intervention is aimed (for
example, cancer or HIV/AIDS) will be too serious to deprive control
subjects of an established effective intervention.
This latter rationale (when active control would not yield reliable
results) differs from the former (trials that entail only minor risks) in
emphasis. In trials that entail only minor risks the investigative
interventions are aimed at relatively trivial conditions, such as the
common cold or hair loss; forgoing an established effective interven-
tion for the duration of a trial deprives control subjects of only minor
benefits. It is for this reason that it is not unethical to use a placebo-
control design. Even if it were possible to design a so-called ‘‘non-
inferiority’’, or ‘‘equivalency’’, trial using an active control, it would
still not be unethical in these circumstances to use a placebo-control
design. In any event, the researcher must satisfy the ethical review
committee that the safety and human rights of the subjects will be fully
protected, that prospective subjects will be fully informed about
alternative treatments, and that the purpose and design of the study
are scientifically sound. The ethical acceptability of such placebo-
controlled studies increases as the period of placebo use is decreased,
and when the study design permits change to active treatment
(‘‘escape treatment’’) if intolerable symptoms occur.
Exceptional use of a comparator other than an established effective

intervention. An exception to the general rule is applicable in some
studies designed to develop a therapeutic, preventive or diagnostic
intervention for use in a country or community in which an established
effective intervention is not available and unlikely in the foreseeable
future to become available, usually for economic or logistic reasons.
The purpose of such a study is to make available to the population of
the country or community an effective alternative to an established
effective intervention that is locally unavailable. Accordingly, the
proposed investigational intervention must be responsive to the health
needs of the population from which the research subjects are recruited
THE GUIDELINES 57
and there must be assurance that, if it proves to be safe and effective, it

will be made reasonably available to that population. Also, the
scientific and ethical review committees must be satisfied that the
established effective intervention cannot be used as comparator
because its use would not yield scientifically reliable results that would
be relevant to the health needs of the study population. In these
circumstances an ethical review committee can approve a clinical trial
in which the comparator is other than an established effective
intervention, such as placebo or no treatment or a local remedy.
However, some people strongly object to the exceptional use of a
comparator other than an established effective intervention because it
could result in exploitation of poor and disadvantaged populations.
The objection rests on three arguments:
. Placebo control could expose research subjects to risk of serious
or irreversible harm when the use of an established effective
intervention as comparator could avoid the risk.
. Not all scientific experts agree about conditions under which an
established effective intervention used as a comparator would
not yield scientifically reliable results.
. An economic reason for the unavailability of an established
effective intervention cannot justify a placebo-controlled study
in a country of limited resources when it would be unethical to
conduct a study with the same design in a population with
general access to the effective intervention outside the study.
Placebo control when an established effective intervention is not

available in the host country. The question addressed here is: when
should an exception be allowed to the general rule that subjects in the
control arm of a clinical trial should receive an established effective
intervention?
The usual reason for proposing the exception is that, for economic
or logistic reasons, an established effective intervention is not in
general use or available in the country in which the study will be
conducted, whereas the investigational intervention could be made
available, given the finances and infrastructure of the country.
Another reason that may be advanced for proposing a placebo-
controlled trial is that using an established effective intervention as the
control would not produce scientifically reliable data relevant to the
country in which the trial is to be conducted. Existing data about the

effectiveness and safety of the established effective intervention may
have been accumulated under circumstances unlike those of the
population in which it is proposed to conduct the trial; this, it may be
argued, could make their use in the trial unreliable. One reason could
be that the disease or condition manifests itself differently in different
populations, or other uncontrolled factors could invalidate the use of
existing data for comparative purposes.
The use of placebo control in these circumstances is ethically
controversial, for the following reasons:
. Sponsors of research might use poor countries or communities
as testing grounds for research that would be difficult or
impossible in countries where there is general access to an
established effective intervention; and the investigational
intervention, if proven safe and effective, is likely to be
marketed in countries in which an established effective
intervention is already available and not likely to be marketed
in the host country.
. The research subjects, both active-arm and control-arm, are
patients who may have a serious, possibly life-threatening,
illness. They do not normally have access to an established
effective intervention currently available to similar patients in
many other countries. According to the requirements of a
scientifically reliable trial, investigators, who may be their
attending physicians, would be expected to enrol some of those
patients/subjects in the placebo-control arm. This would appear
to be a violation of the physician’s fiduciary duty of undivided
loyalty to the patient, particularly in cases in which known
effective therapy could be made available to the patients.
An argument for exceptional use of placebo control may be that a

health authority in a country where an established effective
intervention is not generally available or affordable, and unlikely to
become available or affordable in the foreseeable future, seeks to
develop an affordable intervention specifically for a health problem
affecting its population. There may then be less reason for concern
that a placebo design is exploitative, and therefore unethical, as the
health authority has responsibility for the population’s health, and
THE GUIDELINES 59
there are valid health grounds for testing an apparently beneficial

intervention. In such circumstances an ethical review committee may
determine that the proposed trial is ethically acceptable, provided that
the rights and safety of subjects are safeguarded.
Ethical review committees will need to engage in careful analysis of
the circumstances to determine whether the use of placebo rather than
an established effective intervention is ethically acceptable. They will
need to be satisfied that an established effective intervention is truly
unlikely to become available and implementable in that country. This
may be difficult to determine, however, as it is clear that, with
sufficient persistence and ingenuity, ways may be found of accessing
previously unattainable medicinal products, and thus avoiding the
ethical issue raised by the use of placebo control.
When the rationale of proposing a placebo-controlled trial is that
the use of an established effective intervention as the control would not
yield scientifically reliable data relevant to the proposed host country,
the ethical review committee in that country has the option of seeking
expert opinion as to whether use of an established effective intervention
in the control arm would invalidate the results of the research.
An ‘‘equivalency trial’’ as an alternative to a placebo-controlled trial.

An alternative to a placebo-control design in these circumstances
would be an ‘‘equivalency trial’’, which would compare an investiga-
tional intervention with an established effective intervention and
produce scientifically reliable data. An equivalency trial in a country
in which no established effective intervention is available is not
designed to determine whether the investigational intervention is
superior to an established effective intervention currently used
somewhere in the world; its purpose is, rather, to determine whether
the investigational intervention is, in effectiveness and safety,
equivalent to, or almost equivalent to, the established effective
intervention. It would be hazardous to conclude, however, that an
intervention demonstrated to be equivalent, or almost equivalent, to
an established effective intervention is better than nothing or superior
to whatever intervention is available in the country; there may be
substantial differences between the results of superficially identical
clinical trials carried out in different countries. If there are such
differences, it would be scientifically acceptable and ethically
preferable to conduct such ‘equivalency’ trials in countries in which an

established effective intervention is already available.
If there are substantial grounds for the ethical review committee to
conclude that an established effective intervention will not become
available and implementable, the committee should obtain assurances
from the parties concerned that plans have been agreed for making the
investigational intervention reasonably available in the host country
or community once its effectiveness and safety have been established.
Moreover, when the study has external sponsorship, approval should
usually be dependent on the sponsors and the health authorities of the
host country having engaged in a process of negotiation and planning,
including justifying the study in regard to local health-care needs.
Means of minimizing harm to placebo-control subjects. Even when

placebo controls are justified on one of the bases set forth in the
guideline, there are means of minimizing the possibly harmful effect of
being in the control arm.
First, a placebo-control group need not be untreated. An add-on
design may be employed when the investigational therapy and a
standard treatment have different mechanisms of action. The
treatment to be tested and placebo are each added to a standard
treatment. Such studies have a particular place when a standard
treatment is known to decrease mortality or irreversible morbidity but
a trial with standard treatment as the active control cannot be carried
out or would be difficult to interpret [International Conference on
Harmonisation (ICH) Guideline: Choice of Control Group and Related
Issues in Clinical Trials, 2000]. In testing for improved treatment of
life-threatening diseases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, or heart failure,
add-on designs are a particularly useful means of finding improve-
ments in interventions that are not fully effective or may cause
intolerable side-effects. They have a place also in respect of treatment
for epilepsy, rheumatism and osteoporosis, for example, because
withholding of established effective therapy could result in progres-
sive disability, unacceptable discomfort or both.
Second, as indicated in Guideline 8 Commentary, when the
intervention to be tested in a randomized controlled trial is designed
to prevent or postpone a lethal or disabling outcome, the investigator
minimizes harmful effects of placebo-control studies by providing in the
THE GUIDELINES 61
research protocol for the monitoring of research data by an independent

Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). One function of such a
board is to protect the research subjects from previously unknown
adverse reactions; another is to avoid unnecessarily prolonged exposure
to an inferior therapy. The board fulfils the latter function by means of
interim analyses of the data pertaining to efficacy to ensure that the trial
does not continue beyond the point at which an investigational therapy
is demonstrated to be effective. Normally, at the outset of a randomized
controlled trial, criteria are established for its premature termination
(stopping rules or guidelines).
In some cases the DSMB is called upon to perform ‘‘conditional
power calculations’’, designed to determine the probability that a
particular clinical trial could ever show that the investigational
therapy is effective. If that probability is very small, the DSMB is
expected to recommend termination of the clinical trial, because it
would be unethical to continue it beyond that point.
In most cases of research involving human subjects, it is
unnecessary to appoint a DSMB. To ensure that research is carefully
monitored for the early detection of adverse events, the sponsor or the
principal investigator appoints an individual to be responsible for
advising on the need to consider changing the system of monitoring
for adverse events or the process of informed consent, or even to
consider terminating the study.
Guideline 12
Equitable distribution of burdens and benefits in
the selection of groups of subjects in research
Groups or communities to be invited to be subjects of research
should be selected in such a way that the burdens and benefits
of the research will be equitably distributed. The exclusion
of groups or communities that might benefit from study
participation must be justified.
General considerations: Equity requires that no group or class of
persons should bear more than its fair share of the burdens of
participation in research. Similarly, no group should be deprived of

its fair share of the benefits of research, short-term or long-term; such
benefits include the direct benefits of participation as well as the
benefits of the new knowledge that the research is designed to yield.
When burdens or benefits of research are to be apportioned
unequally among individuals or groups of persons, the criteria for
unequal distribution should be morally justifiable and not arbitrary.
In other words, unequal allocation must not be inequitable. Subjects
should be drawn from the qualifying population in the general
geographic area of the trial without regard to race, ethnicity,
economic status or gender unless there is a sound scientific reason
to do otherwise.
In the past, groups of persons were excluded from participation in
research for what were then considered good reasons. As a
consequence of such exclusions, information about the diagnosis,
prevention and treatment of diseases in such groups of persons is
limited. This has resulted in a serious class injustice. If information
about the management of diseases is considered a benefit that is
distributed within a society, it is unjust to deprive groups of persons of
that benefit. Such documents as the Declaration of Helsinki and the
UNAIDS Guidance Document Ethical Considerations in HIV
Preventive Vaccine Research, and the policies of many national
governments and professional societies, recognize the need to redress
these injustices by encouraging the participation of previously
excluded groups in basic and applied biomedical research.
Members of vulnerable groups also have the same entitlement to
access to the benefits of investigational interventions that show
promise of therapeutic benefit as persons not considered vulnerable,
particularly when no superior or equivalent approaches to therapy are
available.
There has been a perception, sometimes correct and sometimes
incorrect, that certain groups of persons have been overused as
research subjects. In some cases such overuse has been based on the
administrative availability of the populations. Research hospitals are
often located in places where members of the lowest socio-economic
classes reside, and this has resulted in an apparent overuse of such
persons. Other groups that may have been overused because they
were conveniently available to researchers include students in
THE GUIDELINES 63
investigators’ classes, residents of long-term care facilities and

subordinate members of hierarchical institutions. Impoverished
groups have been overused because of their willingness to serve as
subjects in exchange for relatively small stipends. Prisoners have been
considered ideal subjects for Phase I drug studies because of their
highly regimented lives and, in many cases, their conditions of
economic deprivation (Appendix 3).
Overuse of certain groups, such as the poor or the administratively
available, is unjust for several reasons. It is unjust to selectively recruit
impoverished people to serve as research subjects simply because they
can be more easily induced to participate in exchange for small
payments. In most cases, these people would be called upon to bear
the burdens of research so that others who are better off could enjoy
the benefits. However, although the burdens of research should not
fall disproportionately on socio-economically disadvantaged groups,
neither should such groups be categorically excluded from research
protocols. It would not be unjust to selectively recruit poor people to
serve as subjects in research designed to address problems that are
prevalent in their group — malnutrition, for example. Similar
considerations apply to institutionalized groups or those whose
availability to the investigators is for other reasons administratively
convenient.
Not only may certain groups within a society be inappropriately
overused as research subjects, but also entire communities or societies
may be overused. This has been particularly likely to occur in
countries or communities with insufficiently well-developed systems
for the protection of the rights and welfare of human research
subjects. Such overuse is especially questionable when the populations
or communities concerned bear the burdens of participation in
research but are extremely unlikely ever to enjoy the benefits of new
knowledge and products developed as a result of the research. (See
Guideline 10: Research in populations and communities with limited
resources.)
Guideline 13
Research involving vulnerable persons
Special justification is required for inviting vulnerable
individuals to serve as research subjects and, if they are
selected, the means of protecting their rights and welfare must
be strictly applied.
Vulnerable persons are those who are relatively (or absolutely)
incapable of protecting their own interests. More formally, they may
have insufficient power, intelligence, education, resources, strength,
or other needed attributes to protect their own interests.
General considerations. The central problem presented by plans to

involve vulnerable persons as research subjects is that such plans may
entail an inequitable distribution of the burdens and benefits of research
participation. Classes of individuals conventionally considered vulner-
able are those with limited capacity or freedom to consent or to decline
to consent. They are the subject of specific guidelines in this document
(Guidelines 14,15) and include children, and persons who because of
mental or behavioural disorders are incapable of giving informed
consent. Ethical justification of their involvement usually requires that
investigators satisfy ethical review committees that:
7 the research could not be carried out equally well with less
vulnerable subjects;
7 the research is intended to obtain knowledge that will lead to
improved diagnosis, prevention or treatment of diseases or
other health problems characteristic of, or unique to, the
vulnerable class — either the actual subjects or other similarly
situated members of the vulnerable class;
7 research subjects and other members of the vulnerable class from
which subjects are recruited will ordinarily be assured reasonable
access to any diagnostic, preventive or therapeutic products that
will become available as a consequence of the research;
7 the risks attached to interventions or procedures that do not hold
out the prospect of direct health-related benefit will not exceed
those associated with routine medical or psychological examina-
THE GUIDELINES 65
tion of such persons, unless an ethical review committee authorizes

a slight increase over this level of risk (Guideline 9); and,
7 when the prospective subjects are either incompetent or
otherwise substantially unable to give informed consent, their
agreement will be supplemented by the permission of their legal
guardians or other appropriate representatives.
Other vulnerable groups. The quality of the consent of prospective

subjects who are junior or subordinate members of a hierarchical
group requires careful consideration, as their agreement to volunteer
may be unduly influenced, whether justified or not, by the expectation
of preferential treatment if they agree or by fear of disapproval or
retaliation if they refuse. Examples of such groups are medical and
nursing students, subordinate hospital and laboratory personnel,
employees of pharmaceutical companies, and members of the armed
forces or police. Because they work in close proximity to investigators,
they tend to be called upon more often than others to serve as research
subjects, and this could result in inequitable distribution of the
burdens and benefits of research.
Elderly persons are commonly regarded as vulnerable. With
advancing age, people are increasingly likely to acquire attributes that
define them as vulnerable. They may, for example, be institutionalized
or develop varying degrees of dementia. If and when they acquire such
vulnerability-defining attributes, and not before, it is appropriate to
consider them vulnerable and to treat them accordingly.
Other groups or classes may also be considered vulnerable. They
include residents of nursing homes, people receiving welfare benefits
or social assistance and other poor people and the unemployed,
patients in emergency rooms, some ethnic and racial minority groups,
homeless persons, nomads, refugees or displaced persons, prisoners,
patients with incurable disease, individuals who are politically
powerless, and members of communities unfamiliar with modern
medical concepts. To the extent that these and other classes of people
have attributes resembling those of classes identified as vulnerable, the
need for special protection of their rights and welfare should be
reviewed and applied, where relevant.
Persons who have serious, potentially disabling or life-threatening
diseases are highly vulnerable. Physicians sometimes treat such patients
with drugs or other therapies not yet licensed for general availability
because studies designed to establish their safety and efficacy have not
been completed. This is compatible with the Declaration of Helsinki,
which states in Paragraph 32: ‘‘In the treatment of a patient, where
proven...therapeutic methods do not exist or have been ineffective, the
physician, with informed consent from the patient, must be free to use
unproven or new... therapeutic measures, if in the physician’s judgement it
offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering’’.
Such treatment, commonly called ‘compassionate use’, is not properly
regarded as research, but it can contribute to ongoing research into the
safety and efficacy of the interventions used.
Although, on the whole, investigators must study less vulnerable
groups before involving those who may be more vulnerable, some
exceptions are justified. In general, children are not suitable for Phase I
drug trials or for Phase I or II vaccine trials, but such trials may be
permissible after studies in adults have shown some therapeutic or
preventive effect. For example, a Phase II vaccine trial seeking evidence
of immunogenicity in infants may be justified when a vaccine has shown
evidence of preventing or slowing progression of an infectious disease in
adults, or Phase I research with children may be appropriate because the
disease to be treated does not occur in adults or is manifested differently
in children (Appendix 3: Phases of clinical trials.)
Guideline 14
Research involving children
Before undertaking research involving children, the
investigator must ensure that:
7 the research might not equally well be carried out with
adults;
7 the purpose of the research is to obtain knowledge
relevant to the health needs of children;
7 a parent or legal representative of each child has given
permission;
7 the agreement (assent) of each child has been obtained to
the extent of the child’s capabilities; and,
7 a child’s refusal to participate or continue in the research
will be respected.
THE GUIDELINES 67
Justification of the involvement of children in biomedical research. The
participation of children is indispensable for research into diseases of
childhood and conditions to which children are particularly
susceptible (cf. vaccine trials), as well as for clinical trials of drugs
that are designed for children as well as adults. In the past, many new
products were not tested for children though they were directed
towards diseases also occurring in childhood; thus children either did
not benefit from these new drugs or were exposed to them though little
was known about their specific effects or safety in children. Now it is
widely agreed that, as a general rule, the sponsor of any new
therapeutic, diagnostic or preventive product that is likely to be
indicated for use in children is obliged to evaluate its safety and
efficacy for children before it is released for general distribution.
Assent of the child. The willing cooperation of the child should be

sought, after the child has been informed to the extent that the child’s
maturity and intelligence permit. The age at which a child becomes
legally competent to give consent differs substantially from one
jurisdiction to another; in some countries the age of consent
established in their different provinces, states or other political
subdivisions varies considerably. Often children who have not yet
reached the legally established age of consent can understand the
implications of informed consent and go through the necessary
procedures; they can therefore knowingly agree to serve as research
subjects. Such knowing agreement, sometimes referred to as assent, is
insufficient to permit participation in research unless it is supple-
mented by the permission of a parent, a legal guardian or other duly
authorized representative.
Some children who are too immature to be able to give knowing
agreement, or assent, may be able to register a ‘deliberate objection’,
an expression of disapproval or refusal of a proposed procedure. The
deliberate objection of an older child, for example, is to be
distinguished from the behaviour of an infant, who is likely to cry
or withdraw in response to almost any stimulus. Older children, who
are more capable of giving assent, should be selected before younger
children or infants, unless there are valid scientific reasons related to
age for involving younger children first.
A deliberate objection by a child to taking part in research should

always be respected even if the parents have given permission, unless
the child needs treatment that is not available outside the context of
research, the investigational intervention shows promise of therapeu-
tic benefit, and there is no acceptable alternative therapy. In such a
case, particularly if the child is very young or immature, a parent or
guardian may override the child’s objections. If the child is older and
more nearly capable of independent informed consent, the investi-
gator should seek the specific approval or clearance of the scientific
and ethical review committees for initiating or continuing with the
investigational treatment. If child subjects become capable of
independent informed consent during the research, their informed
consent to continued participation should be sought and their
decision respected.
A child with a likely fatal illness may object or refuse assent to
continuation of a burdensome or distressing intervention. In such
circumstances parents may press an investigator to persist with an
investigational intervention against the child’s wishes. The investi-
gator may agree to do so if the intervention shows promise of
preserving or prolonging life and there is no acceptable alternative
treatment. In such cases, the investigator should seek the specific
approval or clearance of the ethical review committee before agreeing
to override the wishes of the child.
Permission of a parent or guardian. The investigator must obtain the

permission of a parent or guardian in accordance with local laws or
established procedures. It may be assumed that children over the age
of 12 or 13 years are usually capable of understanding what is
necessary to give adequately informed consent, but their consent
(assent) should normally be complemented by the permission of a
parent or guardian, even when local law does not require such
permission. Even when the law requires parental permission,
however, the assent of the child must be obtained.
In some jurisdictions, some individuals who are below the general
age of consent are regarded as ‘‘emancipated’’ or ‘‘mature’’ minors
and are authorized to consent without the agreement or even the
awareness of their parents or guardians. They may be married or
pregnant or be already parents or living independently. Some
THE GUIDELINES 69
studies involve investigation of adolescents’ beliefs and behaviour

regarding sexuality or use of recreational drugs; other research
addresses domestic violence or child abuse. For studies on these
topics, ethical review committees may waive parental permission if,
for example, parental knowledge of the subject matter may place the
adolescents at some risk of questioning or even intimidation by their
parents.
Because of the issues inherent in obtaining assent from children in
institutions, such children should only exceptionally be subjects of
research. In the case of institutionalized children without parents, or
whose parents are not legally authorized to grant permission, the
ethical review committee may require sponsors or investigators to
provide it with the opinion of an independent, concerned, expert
advocate for institutionalized children as to the propriety of under-
taking the research with such children.
Observation of research by a parent or guardian. A parent or guardian

who gives permission for a child to participate in research should be
given the opportunity, to a reasonable extent, to observe the research
as it proceeds, so as to be able to withdraw the child if the parent or
guardian decides it is in the child’s best interests to do so.
Psychological and medical support. Research involving children

should be conducted in settings in which the child and the parent
can obtain adequate medical and psychological support. As an
additional protection for children, an investigator may, when
possible, obtain the advice of a child’s family physician, paediatrician
or other health-care provider on matters concerning the child’s
participation in the research.
(See also Guidelines 8: Benefits and risks of study participation;

9: Special limitations on risks when subjects are not capable of giving
consent; and 13: Research involving vulnerable persons.)
Guideline 15
Research involving individuals who
by reason of mental or behavioural
disorders are not capable
of giving adequately informed consent
Before undertaking research involving individuals who by
reason of mental or behavioural disorders are not capable of
giving adequately informed consent, the investigator must
ensure that:
7 such persons will not be subjects of research that might
equally well be carried out on persons whose capacity to
give adequately informed consent is not impaired;
7 the purpose of the research is to obtain knowledge
relevant to the particular health needs of persons with
mental or behavioural disorders;
7 the consent of each subject has been obtained to the
extent of that person’s capabilities, and a prospective
subject’s refusal to participate in research is always
respected, unless, in exceptional circumstances, there is
no reasonable medical alternative and local law permits
overriding the objection; and,
7 in cases where prospective subjects lack capacity to
consent, permission is obtained from a responsible
family member or a legally authorized representative in
accordance with applicable law.
General considerations. Most individuals with mental or behavioural
disorders are capable of giving informed consent; this Guideline is
concerned only with those who are not capable or who because their
condition deteriorates become temporarily incapable. They should
never be subjects of research that might equally well be carried out on
persons in full possession of their mental faculties, but they are clearly
the only subjects suitable for a large part of research into the origins
and treatment of certain severe mental or behavioural disorders.
THE GUIDELINES 71
Consent of the individual. The investigator must obtain the approval of

an ethical review committee to include in research persons who by
reason of mental or behavioural disorders are not capable of giving
informed consent. The willing cooperation of such persons should be
sought to the extent that their mental state permits, and any objection
on their part to taking part in any study that has no components
designed to benefit them directly should always be respected. The
objection of such an individual to an investigational intervention
intended to be of therapeutic benefit should be respected unless there
is no reasonable medical alternative and local law permits overriding
the objection. The agreement of an immediate family member or other
person with a close personal relationship with the individual should be
sought, but it should be recognized that these proxies may have their
own interests that may call their permission into question. Some
relatives may not be primarily concerned with protecting the rights
and welfare of the patients. Moreover, a close family member or friend
may wish to take advantage of a research study in the hope that it will
succeed in ‘‘curing’’ the condition. Some jurisdictions do not permit
third-party permission for subjects lacking capacity to consent. Legal
authorization may be necessary to involve in research an individual
who has been committed to an institution by a court order.
Serious illness in persons who because of mental or behavioural disorders

are unable to give adequately informed consent. Persons who because
of mental or behavioural disorders are unable to give adequately
informed consent and who have, or are at risk of, serious illnesses such
as HIV infection, cancer or hepatitis should not be deprived of the
possible benefits of investigational drugs, vaccines or devices that
show promise of therapeutic or preventive benefit, particularly when
no superior or equivalent therapy or prevention is available. Their
entitlement to access to such therapy or prevention is justified
ethically on the same grounds as is such entitlement for other
vulnerable groups.
Persons who are unable to give adequately informed consent by
reason of mental or behavioural disorders are, in general, not suitable
for participation in formal clinical trials except those trials that are
designed to be responsive to their particular health needs and can be
carried out only with them.
(See also Guidelines 8: Benefits and risks of study participation;

9: Special limitations on risks when subjects are not capable of giving
consent; and 13: Research involving vulnerable persons.)
Guideline 16
Women as research subjects
Investigators, sponsors or ethical review committees should
not exclude women of reproductive age from biomedical
research. The potential for becoming pregnant during a study
should not, in itself, be used as a reason for precluding or
limiting participation. However, a thorough discussion of risks
to the pregnant woman and to her fetus is a prerequisite for
the woman’s ability to make a rational decision to enrol in a
clinical study. In this discussion, if participation in the
research might be hazardous to a fetus or a woman if she
becomes pregnant, the sponsors/investigators should
guarantee the prospective subject a pregnancy test and
access to effective contraceptive methods before the research
commences. Where such access is not possible, for legal or
religious reasons, investigators should not recruit for such
possibly hazardous research women who might become
pregnant.
Women in most societies have been discriminated against with regard
to their involvement in research. Women who are biologically
capable of becoming pregnant have been customarily excluded from
formal clinical trials of drugs, vaccines and medical devices owing to
concern about undetermined risks to the fetus. Consequently,
relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of most drugs,
vaccines or devices for such women, and this lack of knowledge can
be dangerous.
A general policy of excluding from such clinical trials women
biologically capable of becoming pregnant is unjust in that it deprives
women as a class of persons of the benefits of the new knowledge
THE GUIDELINES 73
derived from the trials. Further, it is an affront to their right of self-

determination. Nevertheless, although women of child-bearing age
should be given the opportunity to participate in research, they should
be helped to understand that the research could include risks to the
fetus if they become pregnant during the research.
Although this general presumption favours the inclusion of women
in research, it must be acknowledged that in some parts of the world
women are vulnerable to neglect or harm in research because of their
social conditioning to submit to authority, to ask no questions, and to
tolerate pain and suffering. When women in such situations are
potential subjects in research, investigators need to exercise special
care in the informed consent process to ensure that they have adequate
time and a proper environment in which to take decisions on the basis
of clearly given information.
Individual consent of women. In research involving women of

reproductive age, whether pregnant or non-pregnant, only the
informed consent of the woman herself is required for her participa-
tion. In no case should the permission of a spouse or partner replace
the requirement of individual informed consent. If women wish to
consult with their husbands or partners or seek voluntarily to obtain
their permission before deciding to enrol in research, that is not only
ethically permissible but in some contexts highly desirable. A strict
requirement of authorization of spouse or partner, however, violates
the substantive principle of respect for persons.
A thorough discussion of risks to the pregnant woman and to her
fetus is a prerequisite for the woman’s ability to make a rational
decision to enrol in a clinical study. For women who are not pregnant
at the outset of a study but who might become pregnant while they
are still subjects, the consent discussion should include information
about the alternative of voluntarily withdrawing from the study and,
where legally permissible, terminating the pregnancy. Also, if the
pregnancy is not terminated, they should be guaranteed a medical
follow-up.
(See also Guideline 17: Pregnant women as research subjects.)

Guideline 17
Pregnant women as research subjects
Pregnant women should be presumed to be eligible for
participation in biomedical research. Investigators and ethical
review committees should ensure that prospective subjects
who are pregnant are adequately informed about the risks and
benefits to themselves, their pregnancies, the fetus and their
subsequent offspring, and to their fertility.
Research in this population should be performed only if it is
relevant to the particular health needs of a pregnant woman or
her fetus, or to the health needs of pregnant women in general,
and, when appropriate, if it is supported by reliable evidence
from animal experiments, particularly as to risks of terato-
genicity and mutagenicity.
The justification of research involving pregnant women is compli-
cated by the fact that it may present risks and potential benefits to two
beings — the woman and the fetus — as well as to the person the fetus
is destined to become. Though the decision about acceptability of risk
should be made by the mother as part of the informed consent process,
it is desirable in research directed at the health of the fetus to obtain
the father’s opinion also, when possible. Even when evidence
concerning risks is unknown or ambiguous, the decision about
acceptability of risk to the fetus should be made by the woman as part
of the informed consent process.
Especially in communities or societies in which cultural beliefs
accord more importance to the fetus than to the woman’s life or
health, women may feel constrained to participate, or not to
participate, in research. Special safeguards should be established to
prevent undue inducement to pregnant women to participate in
research in which interventions hold out the prospect of direct benefit
to the fetus. Where fetal abnormality is not recognized as an
indication for abortion, pregnant women should not be recruited
for research in which there is a realistic basis for concern that fetal
THE GUIDELINES 75
abnormality may occur as a consequence of participation as a subject

in research.
Investigators should include in protocols on research with
pregnant women a plan for monitoring the outcome of the pregnancy
with regard to both the health of the woman and the short-term and
long-term health of the child.
Guideline 18
Safeguarding confidentiality
The investigator must establish secure safeguards of the
confidentiality of subjects’ research data. Subjects should be
told the limits, legal or other, to the investigators’ ability to
safeguard confidentiality and the possible consequences of
breaches of confidentiality.
Confidentiality between investigator and subject. Research relating to
individuals and groups may involve the collection and storage of
information that, if disclosed to third parties, could cause harm or
distress. Investigators should arrange to protect the confidentiality of
such information by, for example, omitting information that might
lead to the identification of individual subjects, limiting access to the
information, anonymizing data, or other means. During the process
of obtaining informed consent the investigator should inform the
prospective subjects about the precautions that will be taken to
protect confidentiality.
Prospective subjects should be informed of limits to the ability of
investigators to ensure strict confidentiality and of the foreseeable
adverse social consequences of breaches of confidentiality. Some
jurisdictions require the reporting to appropriate agencies of, for
instance, certain communicable diseases or evidence of child abuse or
neglect. Drug regulatory authorities have the right to inspect clinical-
trial records, and a sponsor’s clinical-compliance audit staff may
require and obtain access to confidential data. These and similar limits
to the ability to maintain confidentiality should be anticipated and

disclosed to prospective subjects.
Participation in HIV/AIDS drug and vaccine trials may impose
upon the research subjects significant associated risks of social
discrimination or harm; such risks merit consideration equal to that
given to adverse medical consequences of the drugs and vaccines.
Efforts must be made to reduce their likelihood and severity. For
example, subjects in vaccine trials must be enabled to demonstrate
that their HIV seropositivity is due to their having been vaccinated
rather than to natural infection. This may be accomplished by
providing them with documents attesting to their participation in
vaccine trials, or by maintaining a confidential register of trial
subjects, from which information can be made available to outside
agencies at a subject’s request.
Confidentiality between physician and patient. Patients have the right

to expect that their physicians and other health-care professionals will
hold all information about them in strict confidence and disclose it
only to those who need, or have a legal right to, the information, such
as other attending physicians, nurses, or other health-care workers
who perform tasks related to the diagnosis and treatment of patients.
A treating physician should not disclose any identifying information
about patients to an investigator unless each patient has given consent
to such disclosure and unless an ethical review committee has
approved such disclosure.
Physicians and other health care professionals record the details of
their observations and interventions in medical and other records.
Epidemiological studies often make use of such records. For such
studies it is usually impracticable to obtain the informed consent of
each identifiable patient; an ethical review committee may waive the
requirement for informed consent when this is consistent with the
requirements of applicable law and provided that there are secure
safeguards of confidentiality. (See also Guideline 4 Commentary:
Waiver of the consent requirement.) In institutions in which records
may be used for research purposes without the informed consent of
patients, it is advisable to notify patients generally of such practices;
notification is usually by means of a statement in patient-information
brochures. For research limited to patients’ medical records, access
THE GUIDELINES 77
must be approved or cleared by an ethical review committee and must

be supervised by a person who is fully aware of the confidentiality
requirements.
Issues of confidentiality in genetics research. An investigator who

proposes to perform genetic tests of known clinical or predictive value
on biological samples that can be linked to an identifiable individual
must obtain the informed consent of the individual or, when
indicated, the permission of a legally authorized representative.
Conversely, before performing a genetic test that is of known
predictive value or gives reliable information about a known heritable
condition, and individual consent or permission has not been
obtained, investigators must see that biological samples are fully
anonymized and unlinked; this ensures that no information about
specific individuals can be derived from such research or passed back
to them.
When biological samples are not fully anonymized and when it is
anticipated that there may be valid clinical or research reasons for
linking the results of genetic tests to research subjects, the investigator
in seeking informed consent should assure prospective subjects that
their identity will be protected by secure coding of their samples
(encryption) and by restricted access to the database, and explain to
them this process.
When it is clear that for medical or possibly research reasons the
results of genetic tests will be reported to the subject or to the subject’s
physician, the subject should be informed that such disclosure will
occur and that the samples to be tested will be clearly labelled.
Investigators should not disclose results of diagnostic genetic tests
to relatives of subjects without the subjects’ consent. In places where
immediate family relatives would usually expect to be informed of
such results, the research protocol, as approved or cleared by the
ethical review committee, should indicate the precautions in place to
prevent such disclosure of results without the subjects’ consent; such
plans should be clearly explained during the process of obtaining
informed consent.
Guideline 19
Right of injured subjects to treatment
and compensation
Investigators should ensure that research subjects who suffer
injury as a result of their participation are entitled to free
medical treatment for such injury and to such financial or other
assistance as would compensate them equitably for any
resultant impairment, disability or handicap. In the case of
death as a result of their participation, their dependants are
entitled to compensation. Subjects must not be asked to waive
the right to compensation.
Guideline 19 is concerned with two distinct but closely related
entitlements. The first is the uncontroversial entitlement to free
medical treatment and compensation for accidental injury inflicted by
procedures or interventions performed exclusively to accomplish the
purposes of research (non-therapeutic procedures). The second is the
entitlement of dependants to material compensation for death or
disability occurring as a direct result of study participation.
Implementing a compensation system for research-related injuries
or death is likely to be complex, however.
Equitable compensation and free medical treatment. Compensation is

owed to research subjects who are disabled as a consequence of injury
from procedures performed solely to accomplish the purposes of
research. Compensation and free medical treatment are generally not
owed to research subjects who suffer expected or foreseen adverse
reactions to investigational therapeutic, diagnostic or preventive
interventions when such reactions are not different in kind from those
known to be associated with established interventions in standard
medical practice. In the early stages of drug testing (Phase I and early
Phase II), it is generally unreasonable to assume that an investiga-
tional drug holds out the prospect of direct benefit for the individual
subject; accordingly, compensation is usually owed to individuals who
become disabled as a result of serving as subjects in such studies.
THE GUIDELINES 79
The ethical review committee should determine in advance: i) the

injuries for which subjects will receive free treatment and, in case of
impairment, disability or handicap resulting from such injuries, be
compensated; and ii) the injuries for which they will not be
compensated. Prospective subjects should be informed of the
committee’s decisions, as part of the process of informed consent.
As an ethical review committee cannot make such advance
determination in respect of unexpected or unforeseen adverse
reactions, such reactions must be presumed compensable and should
be reported to the committee for prompt review as they occur.
Subjects must not be asked to waive their rights to compensation or
required to show negligence or lack of a reasonable degree of skill on
the part of the investigator in order to claim free medical treatment or
compensation. The informed consent process or form should contain
no words that would absolve an investigator from responsibility in the
case of accidental injury, or that would imply that subjects would
waive their right to seek compensation for impairment, disability or
handicap. Prospective subjects should be informed that they will not
need to take legal action to secure the free medical treatment or
compensation for injury to which they may be entitled. They should
also be told what medical service or organization or individual will
provide the medical treatment and what organization will be
responsible for providing compensation.
Obligation of the sponsor with regard to compensation. Before the

research begins, the sponsor, whether a pharmaceutical company or
other organization or institution, or a government (where government
insurance is not precluded by law), should agree to provide
compensation for any physical injury for which subjects are entitled
to compensation, or come to an agreement with the investigator
concerning the circumstances in which the investigator must rely on
his or her own insurance coverage (for example, for negligence or
failure of the investigator to follow the protocol, or where government
insurance coverage is limited to negligence). In certain circumstances
it may be advisable to follow both courses. Sponsors should seek
adequate insurance against risks to cover compensation, independent
of proof of fault.
Guideline 20
Strengthening capacity for ethical and
scientific review and biomedical research
Many countries lack the capacity to assess or ensure the
scientific quality or ethical acceptability of biomedical research
proposed or carried out in their jurisdictions. In externally
sponsored collaborative research, sponsors and investigators
have an ethical obligation to ensure that biomedical research
projects for which they are responsible in such countries
contribute effectively to national or local capacity to design and
conduct biomedical research, and to provide scientific and
ethical review and monitoring of such research.
Capacity-building may include, but is not limited to, the
following activities:
. establishing and strengthening independent and compe-
tent ethical review processes/ committees
. strengthening research capacity
. developing technologies appropriate to health-care and
biomedical research
. training of research and health-care staff
. educating the community from which research subjects
will be drawn.
External sponsors and investigators have an ethical obligation to
contribute to a host country’s sustainable capacity for independent
scientific and ethical review and biomedical research. Before under-
taking research in a host country with little or no such capacity,
external sponsors and investigators should include in the research
protocol a plan that specifies the contribution they will make. The
amount of capacity building reasonably expected should be propor-
tional to the magnitude of the research project. A brief epidemiol-
ogical study involving only review of medical records, for example,
would entail relatively little, if any, such development, whereas a
considerable contribution is to be expected of an external sponsor of,
THE GUIDELINES 81
for instance, a large-scale vaccine field-trial expected to last two or

three years.
The specific capacity-building objectives should be determined and
achieved through dialogue and negotiation between external sponsors
and host-country authorities. External sponsors would be expected to
employ and, if necessary, train local individuals to function as
investigators, research assistants or data managers, for example, and
to provide, as necessary, reasonable amounts of financial, educational
and other assistance for capacity-building. To avoid conflict of
interest and safeguard the independence of review committees,
financial assistance should not be provided directly to them; rather,
funds should be made available to appropriate authorities in the host-
country government or to the host research institution.
(See also Guideline 10: Research in populations and communities
with limited resources).
Guideline 21
Ethical obligation of external sponsors
to provide health-care services
External sponsors are ethically obliged to ensure the
availability of:
7 health-care services that are essential to the safe conduct
of the research;
7 treatment for subjects who suffer injury as a conse-
quence of research interventions; and,
7 services that are a necessary part of the commitment of a
sponsor to make a beneficial intervention or product
developed as a result of the research reasonably avail-
able to the population or community concerned.
Obligations of external sponsors to provide health-care services will vary
with the circumstances of particular studies and the needs of host
countries. The sponsors’ obligations in particular studies should be
clarified before the research is begun. The research protocol should
specify what health-care services will be made available, during and after
the research, to the subjects themselves, to the community from which
the subjects are drawn, or to the host country, and for how long. The
details of these arrangements should be agreed by the sponsor, officials
of the host country, other interested parties, and, when appropriate, the
community from which subjects are to be drawn. The agreed
arrangements should be specified in the consent process and document.
Although sponsors are, in general, not obliged to provide health-
care services beyond that which is necessary for the conduct of the
research, it is morally praiseworthy to do so. Such services typically
include treatment for diseases contracted in the course of the study. It
might, for example, be agreed to treat cases of an infectious disease
contracted during a trial of a vaccine designed to provide immunity to
that disease, or to provide treatment of incidental conditions
unrelated to the study.
The obligation to ensure that subjects who suffer injury as a
consequence of research interventions obtain medical treatment free
of charge, and that compensation be provided for death or disability
occurring as a consequence of such injury, is the subject of
Guideline 19, on the scope and limits of such obligations.
When prospective or actual subjects are found to have diseases
unrelated to the research, or cannot be enrolled in a study because
they do not meet the health criteria, investigators should, as
appropriate, advise them to obtain, or refer them for, medical care.
In general, also, in the course of a study, sponsors should disclose to
the proper health authorities information of public health concern
arising from the research.
The obligation of the sponsor to make reasonably available for the
benefit of the population or community concerned any intervention or
product developed, or knowledge generated, as a result of the research
is considered in Guideline 10: Research in populations and communities
with limited resources.
Appendix 1
ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN A PROTOCOL

(OR ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS)
FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INVOLVING
HUMAN SUBJECTS
(Include the items relevant to the study/project in question)

1. Title of the study;
2. A summary of the proposed research in lay/non-technical
language;
3. A clear statement of the justification for the study, and its
significance in development and in meeting the needs of the
country/population in which the research is carried out;
4. The investigators’ views of the ethical issues and considerations
raised by the study and, if appropriate, how it is proposed to deal
with them;
5. Summary of all previous studies on the topic, including
unpublished studies known to the investigators and sponsors,
and information on previously published research on the topic,
including the nature, extent and relevance of animal studies and
other preclinical and clinical studies;
6. A statement that the principles set out in these Guidelines will be
implemented;
7. An account of previous submissions of the protocol for ethical
review and their outcome;
8. A brief description of the site(s) where the research is to be
conducted, including information about the adequacy of
facilities for the safe and appropriate conduct of the research,
and relevant demographic and epidemiological information
about the country or region concerned;
9. Name and address of the sponsor;
10. Names, addresses, institutional affiliations, qualifications and
experience of the principal investigator and other investigators;
11. The objectives of the trial or study, its hypotheses or research

questions, its assumptions, and its variables;
12. A detailed description of the design of the trial or study. In the case
of controlled clinical trials the description should include, but not
be limited to, whether assignment to treatment groups will be
randomized (including the method of randomization), and whether
the study will be blinded (single blind, double blind), or open;
13. The number of research subjects needed to achieve the study
objective, and how this was statistically determined;
14. The criteria for inclusion or exclusion of potential subjects, and
justification for the exclusion of any groups on the basis of age,
sex, social or economic factors, or for other reasons;
15. The justification for involving as research subjects any persons
with limited capacity to consent or members of vulnerable social
groups, and a description of special measures to minimize risks
and discomfort to such subjects;
16. The process of recruitment, e.g., advertisements, and the steps to
be taken to protect privacy and confidentiality during recruit-
ment;
17. Description and explanation of all interventions (the method of
treatment administration, including route of administration,
dose, dose interval and treatment period for investigational and
comparator products used);
18. Plans and justification for withdrawing or withholding standard
therapies in the course of the research, including any resulting
risks to subjects;
19. Any other treatment that may be given or permitted, or
contraindicated, during the study;
20. Clinical and laboratory tests and other tests that are to be carried
out;
21. Samples of the standardized case-report forms to be used, the
methods of recording therapeutic response (description and
evaluation of methods and frequency of measurement), the
follow-up procedures, and, if applicable, the measures proposed
to determine the extent of compliance of subjects with the treatment;
22. Rules or criteria according to which subjects may be removed
from the study or clinical trial, or (in a multi-centre study) a
centre may be discontinued, or the study may be terminated;
APPENDIX 1 85
23. Methods of recording and reporting adverse events or reactions,

and provisions for dealing with complications;
24. The known or foreseen risks of adverse reactions, including the
risks attached to each proposed intervention and to any drug,
vaccine or procedure to be tested;
25. For research carrying more than minimal risk of physical injury,
details of plans, including insurance coverage, to provide
treatment for such injury, including the funding of treatment,
and to provide compensation for research-related disability or
death;
26. Provision for continuing access of subjects to the investigational
treatment after the study, indicating its modalities, the individual
or organization responsible for paying for it, and for how long it
will continue;
27. For research on pregnant women, a plan, if appropriate, for
monitoring the outcome of the pregnancy with regard to both the
health of the woman and the short-term and long-term health of
the child;
28. The potential benefits of the research to subjects and to others;
29. The expected benefits of the research to the population, including
new knowledge that the study might generate;
30. The means proposed to obtain individual informed consent and
the procedure planned to communicate information to prospec-
tive subjects, including the name and position of the person
responsible for obtaining consent;
31. When a prospective subject is not capable of informed consent,
satisfactory assurance that permission will be obtained from a
duly authorized person, or, in the case of a child who is
sufficiently mature to understand the implications of informed
consent but has not reached the legal age of consent, that
knowing agreement, or assent, will be obtained, as well as the
permission of a parent, or a legal guardian or other duly
authorized representative;
32. An account of any economic or other inducements or incentives
to prospective subjects to participate, such as offers of cash
payments, gifts, or free services or facilities, and of any financial
obligations assumed by the subjects, such as payment for medical
services;
33. Plans and procedures, and the persons responsible, for commu-
nicating to subjects information arising from the study (on harm
or benefit, for example), or from other research on the same
topic, that could affect subjects’ willingness to continue in the
study;
34. Plans to inform subjects about the results of the study;
35. The provisions for protecting the confidentiality of personal
data, and respecting the privacy of subjects, including the
precautions that are in place to prevent disclosure of the results of
a subject’s genetic tests to immediate family relatives without the
consent of the subject;
36. Information about how the code, if any, for the subjects’ identity
is established, where it will be kept and when, how and by whom
it can be broken in the event of an emergency;
37. Any foreseen further uses of personal data or biological
materials;
38. A description of the plans for statistical analysis of the study,
including plans for interim analyses, if any, and criteria for
prematurely terminating the study as a whole if necessary;
39. Plans for monitoring the continuing safety of drugs or other
interventions administered for purposes of the study or trial and,
if appropriate, the appointment for this purpose of an
independent data-monitoring (data and safety monitoring)
committee;
40. A list of the references cited in the protocol;
41. The source and amount of funding of the research: the
organization that is sponsoring the research and a detailed
account of the sponsor’s financial commitments to the research
institution, the investigators, the research subjects, and, when
relevant, the community;
42. The arrangements for dealing with financial or other conflicts of
interest that might affect the judgement of investigators or other
research personnel: informing the institutional conflict-of-
interest committee of such conflicts of interest; the communica-
tion by that committee of the pertinent details of the information
to the ethical review committee; and the transmission by that
committee to the research subjects of the parts of the information
that it decides should be passed on to them;
APPENDIX 1 87
43. The time schedule for completion of the study;

44. For research that is to be carried out in a developing country or
community, the contribution that the sponsor will make to
capacity-building for scientific and ethical review and for
biomedical research in the host country, and an assurance that
the capacity-building objectives are in keeping with the values
and expectations of the subjects and their communities;
45. Particularly in the case of an industrial sponsor, a contract
stipulating who possesses the right to publish the results of the
study, and a mandatory obligation to prepare with, and submit
to, the principal investigators the draft of the text reporting the
results;
46. In the case of a negative outcome, an assurance that the results
will be made available, as appropriate, through publication or by
reporting to the drug registration authority;
47. Circumstances in which it might be considered inappropriate to
publish findings, such as when the findings of an epidemiologi-
cal, sociological or genetics study may present risks to the
interests of a community or population or of a racially or
ethnically defined group of people;
48. A statement that any proven evidence of falsification of data will
be dealt with in accordance with the policy of the sponsor to take
appropriate action against such unacceptable procedures.
Appendix 2
WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

DECLARATION OF HELSINKI
Ethical Principles
for
Medical Research Involving Human Subjects
Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly

Helsinki, Finland, June 1964
and amended by the
29th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975
35th WMA General Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983
41st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989
48th WMA General Assembly, Somerset West,
Republic of South Africa, October 1996
and the
nd
52 WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland,
October 2000
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The World Medical Association has developed the Declara-
tion of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles to provide
guidance to physicians and other participants in medical
research involving human subjects. Medical research invol-
ving human subjects includes research on identifiable human
material or identifiable data.
2. It is the duty of the physician to promote and safeguard the
health of the people. The physician’s knowledge and
conscience are dedicated to the fulfillment of this duty.
3. The Declaration of Geneva of the World Medical Association
binds the physician with the words, ‘‘The health of my patient
90 DECLARATION OF HELSINKI
will be my first consideration,’’ and the International Code of

Medical Ethics declares that, ‘‘A physician shall act only in
the patient’s interest when providing medical care which
might have the effect of weakening the physical and mental
condition of the patient.’’
4. Medical progress is based on research which ultimately must
rest in part on experimentation involving human subjects.
5. In medical research on human subjects, considerations related
to the well-being of the human subject should take precedence
over the interests of science and society.
6. The primary purpose of medical research involving human
subjects is to improve prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeu-
tic procedures and the understanding of the aetiology and
pathogenesis of disease. Even the best proven prophylactic,
diagnostic, and therapeutic methods must continuously be
challenged through research for their effectiveness, efficiency,
accessibility and quality.
7. In current medical practice and in medical research, most
prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures involve
risks and burdens.
8. Medical research is subject to ethical standards that promote
respect for all human beings and protect their health and
rights. Some research populations are vulnerable and need
special protection. The particular needs of the economically
and medically disadvantaged must be recognized. Special
attention is also required for those who cannot give or refuse
consent for themselves, for those who may be subject to giving
consent under duress, for those who will not benefit
personally from the research and for those for whom the
research is combined with care.
9. Research Investigators should be aware of the ethical, legal
and regulatory requirements for research on human subjects
in their own countries as well as applicable international
requirements. No national ethical, legal or regulatory
requirement should be allowed to reduce or eliminate any
of the protections for human subjects set forth in this
Declaration.
APPENDIX 2 91
B. BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR ALL MEDICAL RESEARCH

10. It is the duty of the physician in medical research to protect
the life, health, privacy, and dignity of the human subject.
11. Medical research involving human subjects must conform to
generally accepted scientific principles, be based on a
thorough knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant
sources of information, and on adequate laboratory and,
where appropriate, animal experimentation.
12. Appropriate caution must be exercised in the conduct of
research which may affect the environment, and the welfare of
animals used for research must be respected.
13. The design and performance of each experimental procedure
involving human subjects should be clearly formulated in an
experimental protocol. This protocol should be submitted for
consideration, comment, guidance, and where appropriate,
approval to a specially appointed ethical review committee,
which must be independent of the investigator, the sponsor or
any other kind of undue influence. This independent committee
should be in conformity with the laws and regulations of the
country in which the research experiment is performed. The
committee has the right to monitor ongoing trials. The
researcher has the obligation to provide monitoring informa-
tion to the committee, especially any serious adverse events. The
researcher should also submit to the committee, for review,
information regarding funding, sponsors, institutional affilia-
tions, other potential conflicts of interest and incentives for
subjects.
14. The research protocol should always contain a statement of the
ethical considerations involved and should indicate that there
is compliance with the principles enunciated in this Declara-
tion.
15. Medical research involving human subjects should be
conducted only by scientifically qualified persons and under
the supervision of a clinically competent medical person. The
responsibility for the human subject must always rest with a
medically qualified person and never rest on the subject of the
research, even though the subject has given consent.
16. Every medical research project involving human subjects

should be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks
and burdens in comparison with foreseeable benefits to the
subject or to others. This does not preclude the participation
of healthy volunteers in medical research. The design of all
studies should be publicly available.
17. Physicians should abstain from engaging in research projects
involving human subjects unless they are confident that the
risks involved have been adequately assessed and can be
satisfactorily managed. Physicians should cease any investi-
gation if the risks are found to outweigh the potential benefits
or if there is conclusive proof of positive and beneficial results.
18. Medical research involving human subjects should only be
conducted if the importance of the objective outweighs the
inherent risks and burdens to the subject. This is especially
important when the human subjects are healthy volunteers.
19. Medical research is only justified if there is a reasonable
likelihood that the populations in which the research is carried
out stand to benefit from the results of the research.
20. The subjects must be volunteers and informed participants in
the research project.
21. The right of research subjects to safeguard their integrity must
always be respected. Every precaution should be taken to
respect the privacy of the subject, the confidentiality of the
patient’s information and to minimize the impact of the study
on the subject’s physical and mental integrity and on the
personality of the subject.
22. In any research on human beings, each potential subject must
be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of
funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional
affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and
potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail.
The subject should be informed of the right to abstain from
participation in the study or to withdraw consent to
participate at any time without reprisal. After ensuring that
the subject has understood the information, the physician
should then obtain the subject’s freely-given informed
consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be
APPENDIX 2 93
obtained in writing, the non-written consent must be formally

documented and witnessed.
23. When obtaining informed consent for the research project the
physician should be particularly cautious if the subject is in a
dependent relationship with the physician or may consent
under duress. In that case the informed consent should be
obtained by a well-informed physician who is not engaged in
the investigation and who is completely independent of this
relationship.
24. For a research subject who is legally incompetent, physically or
mentally incapable of giving consent or is a legally incompetent
minor, the investigator must obtain informed consent from the
legally authorized representative in accordance with applicable
law. These groups should not be included in research unless the
research is necessary to promote the health of the population
represented and this research cannot instead be performed on
legally competent persons.
25. When a subject deemed legally incompetent, such as a minor
child, is able to give assent to decisions about participation in
research, the investigator must obtain that assent in addition
to the consent of the legally authorized representative.
26. Research on individuals from whom it is not possible to
obtain consent, including proxy or advance consent, should
be done only if the physical/mental condition that prevents
obtaining informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the
research population. The specific reasons for involving
research subjects with a condition that renders them unable
to give informed consent should be stated in the experimental
protocol for consideration and approval of the review
committee. The protocol should state that consent to remain
in the research should be obtained as soon as possible from
the individual or a legally authorized surrogate.
27. Both authors and publishers have ethical obligations. In
publication of the results of research, the investigators are
obliged to preserve the accuracy of the results. Negative as
well as positive results should be published or otherwise
publicly available. Sources of funding, institutional affilia-
tions and any possible conflicts of interest should be declared
in the publication. Reports of experimentation not in

accordance with the principles laid down in this Declaration
should not be accepted for publication.
C. ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES FOR MEDICAL

RESEARCH COMBINED WITH MEDICAL CARE
28. The physician may combine medical research with medical
care, only to the extent that the research is justified by its
potential prophylactic, diagnostic or therapeutic value. When
medical research is combined with medical care, additional
standards apply to protect the patients who are research
subjects.
29. The benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new method
should be tested against those of the best current prophylac-
tic, diagnostic, and therapeutic methods. This does not
exclude the use of placebo, or no treatment, in studies where
no proven prophylactic, diagnostic or therapeutic method
exists.
30. At the conclusion of the study, every patient entered into the
study should be assured of access to the best proven
prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic methods identified
by the study.
31. The physician should fully inform the patient which aspects of
the care are related to the research. The refusal of a patient to
participate in a study must never interfere with the patient-
physician relationship.
32. In the treatment of a patient, where proven prophylactic,
diagnostic and therapeutic methods do not exist or have been
ineffective, the physician, with informed consent from the
patient, must be free to use unproven or new prophylactic,
diagnostic and therapeutic measures, if in the physician’s
judgement it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health
or alleviating suffering. Where possible, these measures
should be made the object of research, designed to evaluate
their safety and efficacy. In all cases, new information should
be recorded and, where appropriate, published. The other
relevant guidelines of this Declaration should be followed.
APPENDIX 2 95
NOTE OF CLARIFICATION ON PARAGRAPH 29

OF THE WMA DECLARATION OF HELSINKI
The WMA is concerned that paragraph 29 of the revised Declaration
of Helsinki (October 2000) has led to diverse interpretations and
possible confusion. It hereby reaffirms its position that extreme care
must be taken in making use of a placebo-controlled trial and that in
general this methodology should only be used in the absence of
existing proven therapy. However, a placebo-controlled trial may be
ethically acceptable, even if proven therapy is available, under the
following circumstances:
7 Where for compelling and scientifically sound methodolo-
gical reasons its use is necessary to determine the efficacy or
safety of a prophylactic, diagnostic or therapeutic method;
or
7 Where a prophylactic, diagnostic or therapeutic method is
being investigated for a minor condition and the patients
who receive placebo will not be subject to any additional risk
of serious or irreversible harm.
All other provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki must be
adhered to, especially the need for appropriate ethical and scientific
review.
Appendix 3
THE PHASES OF CLINICAL TRIALS

OF VACCINES AND DRUGS
VACCINE DEVELOPMENT
Phase I refers to the first introduction of a candidate vaccine into a
human population for initial determination of its safety and biological
effects, including immunogenicity. This phase may include studies of
dose and route of administration, and usually involves fewer than
100 volunteers.
Phase II refers to the initial trials examining effectiveness in a
limited number of volunteers (usually between 200 and 500); the focus
of this phase is immunogenicity.
Phase III trials are intended for a more complete assessment of
safety and effectiveness in the prevention of disease, involving a larger
number of volunteers in a multicentre adequately controlled study.
DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Phase I refers to the first introduction of a drug into humans. Normal
volunteer subjects are usually studied to determine levels of drugs at
which toxicity is observed. Such studies are followed by dose-ranging
studies in patients for safety and, in some cases, early evidence of
effectiveness.
Phase II investigation consists of controlled clinical trials designed
to demonstrate effectiveness and relative safety. Normally, these are
performed on a limited number of closely monitored patients.
Phase III trials are performed after a reasonable probability of
effectiveness of a drug has been established and are intended to gather
additional evidence of effectiveness for specific indications and more
precise definition of drug-related adverse effects. This phase includes
both controlled and uncontrolled studies.
98 PHASES OF CLINICAL TRIALS
Phase II and Phase III drug trials should be conducted according to

Section C (Paragraphs 28–32) of the Declaration of Helsinki, which
refers to medical research combined with medical care.
Phase IV trials are conducted after the national drug registration
authority has approved a drug for distribution or marketing. These
trials may include research designed to explore a specific pharmaco-
logical effect, to establish the incidence of adverse reactions, or to
determine the effects of long-term administration of a drug. Phase IV
trials may also be designed to evaluate a drug in a population not
studied adequately in the pre-marketing phases (such as children or
the elderly) or to establish a new clinical indication for a drug. Such
research is to be distinguished from marketing research, sales
promotion studies, and routine post-marketing surveillance for
adverse drug reactions in that these categories ordinarily need not
be reviewed by ethical review committees (see Guideline 2).
Appendix 4
MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE
ABDUSSALAM, Mohamed
Former Chairman, WHO Advisory Committee
for Health Research for the Eastern Mediterranean
Geneva, Switzerland
BANKOWSKI, Zbigniew
Secretary-General
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences
Geneva, Switzerland
BENATAR, Solomon
Department of Medicine
University of Cape Town,
Observatory, South Africa
BIROS, Nicole
Research Policy and Cooperation
World Health Organization
Geneva, Switzerland
BRYANT, John H.
President, Council for International Organizations
of Medical Sciences
Moscow, Vermont, USA
DOLIN, Paul
HIV/AIDS/Sexually Transmitted Infections
Geneva, Switzerland
ENGERS, Howard D.
Special Programme for Research and Training
in Tropical Diseases
Geneva, Switzerland
100 MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE
ESPARZA, José
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
Geneva, Switzerland
FAGOT-LARGEAULT, Anne
Comité consultatif national d’Ethique
Paris, France
FLUSS, Sev S.
Geneva, Switzerland
GALLAGHER, James
Geneva, Switzerland
GOROVITZ, Samuel
Syracuse University,
Syracuse, New York, USA
HUMAN, Delon
Secretary-General
World Medical Association,
Ferney Voltaire, France
IDÄNPÄÄN-HEIKKILÄ, Juhana E.
Health Technology and Pharmaceuticals
Geneva, Switzerland
KHAN, Kausar S.
Department of Community Health Sciences
Aga Khan University
Karachi, Pakistan
LEVINE, Robert J. (Chair)
School of Medicine
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut, USA
APPENDIX 4 101
LOLAS STEPKE, Fernando

Regional Program on Bioethics
Pan American Health Organization
Santiago, Chile
LUNA, Florencia
University of Buenos Aires, and
PAHO/WHO Regional Program on Bioethics,
Buenos Aires, Argentina
NATTH, Bhamarapravati
Center for Vaccine Development
Mahidol University,
Bangkok, Thailand
OSMANOV, Saladin
Geneva, Switzerland
PATTOU, Claire
Geneva, Switzerland
VAN PRAAG, Eric
HIV/AIDS/Sexually Transmitted Infections
Geneva, Switzerland
REITER-THEIL, Stella
Centre for Ethics and Law in Medicine
University of Freiburg,
Freiburg, Germany
WEIJER, Charles
Department of Bioethics
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
WIKLER, Daniel
Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy
Geneva, Switzerland
Appendix 5
CONSULTATION ON REVISING/UPDATING OF
INTERNATIONAL ETHICAL GUIDELINES
FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INVOLVING
HUMAN SUBJECTS, MARCH 2000
PARTICIPANTS
ABDUSSALAM, Mohamed
Former Chairman,
WHO Advisory Committee for Health Research
for the Eastern Mediterranean,
Geneva, Switzerland
ANDREOPOULOS, George
John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
Department of Government,
The City University of New York,
New York, USA
AN-NA’IM, Abdullahi
Emory University School of Law,
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
ASHCROFT, Richard
Centre for Ethics in Medicine,
University of Bristol,
Bristol, England
BANKOWSKI, Zbigniew
Secretary-General Emeritus,
Geneva, Switzerland
BENATAR, Solomon
Department of Medicine,
Medical School,
University of Cape Town,
South Africa
104
BIROS, Nicole
Research Policy and Cooperation,
World Health Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland
BOULYJENKOV, Victor
Human Genetics,
Geneva, Switzerland
BRUNET, Phillipe
DG Enterprise,
European Commission,
Brussels, Belgium
BRYANT, John H.
President,
Moscow, Vermont, USA
CAPRON, Alex M.
Pacific Center for Health Policy and Ethics,
University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, California, USA
De CASTRO, Leonardo
Department of Philosophy,
University of the Philippines,
Quezon City,
The Philippines
CLAYTON, Ellen W.
Director,
Genetics and Health Policy Center, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, Tennessee, USA
CRAWLEY, Francis
European Forum for Good Clinical Practice,
Brussels, Belgium
EFFA, Pierre
President,
Société camerounaise de Bioéthique,
Douala, Cameroon
APPENDIX 5 105
ELLIS, Gary
Office for Protection from Research Risks,
Rockville, Maryland, USA
ENGERS, Howard D.
Special Programme for Research
and Training in Tropical Diseases,
Geneva, Switzerland
FAGOT-LARGEAULT, Anne
Université de Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne,
Institut d’Histoire et Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques,
Paris, France
FLEET, Julian
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS,
Geneva, Switzerland
FLUSS, Sev S.
Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences,
Geneva, Switzerland
De FRANCISCO, Andres
Global Forum for Health Research,
Geneva, Switzerland
GALLAGHER, James
Geneva, Switzerland
GOROVITZ, Samuel
Syracuse University,
Syracuse,
New York, USA
HIMMICH, Hakima
Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy,
Casablanca, Morocco
HUMAN, Delon
Secretary-General, World Medical Association,
Ferney-Voltaire, France
106
IDÄNPÄÄN-HEIKKILÄ, Juhana E.
Institute of Biomedicine,
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology,
University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
KARBWANG, Juntra
Communicable Disease Research and Development,
Geneva, Switzerland
KHAN, Kausar S.
Community Health Sciences,
Aga Khan University,
Karachi, Pakistan
KSHIRSAGAR, Nilima
Dean,
Medical College and BYL Nair Hospital,
Mumbai, India
KUBAR, Olga I.
St. Petersburg Pasteur Institute,
St. Petersburg, Russia
LEPAY, David A.
Division of Scientific Investigations,
Office of Medical Policy,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
US Food and Drug Administration,
Rockville, Maryland, USA
LEVINE, Robert J.
Yale University School of Medicine,
New Haven, Connecticut, USA
LIE, Reidar
Department of Philosophy,
University of Bergen,
Bergen, Norway
LOLAS STEPKE, Fernando
Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization,
Regional Program on Bioethics,
Santiago, Chile
APPENDIX 5 107
LUNA, Florencia
University of Buenos Aires,
PAHO/WHO Regional Program on Bioethics,
Buenos Aires, Argentina
MACKLIN, Ruth
Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine,
Albert Einstein College of Medicine,
Bronx, New York, USA
MALUWA, Miriam
Geneva, Switzerland
MANSOURIAN, Pierre B.
Rolle, Switzerland
MARSHALL, Patricia
Medical Humanities Program,
Department of Medicine,
Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine,
Maywood, Illinois, USA
MPANJU-SHUMBUSHO, Winnie K.
HIV/AIDS/ Sexually Transmitted Infections,
Geneva, Switzerland
MWINGA, Alwyn
University Teaching Hospital,
Lusaka, Zambia
OSMANOV, Saladin
Geneva, Switzerland
PANGESTU, Tiki E.
Research Policy and Cooperation,
Geneva, Switzerland
PATTOU, Claire
Geneva, Switzerland
108
QIU, Ren-Zong.
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,
Program in Bioethics,
Beijing, China
RAGO, Lembit
Quality Assurance and Safety: Medicines,
Geneva, Switzerland
REITER-THEIL, Stella
Center for Ethics and Law in Medicine,
University of Freiburg,
Germany
SARACCI, Rodolfo
International Agency for Research on Cancer/WHO,
Lyon, France
SPRUMONT, Dominique
Institut de Droit de la Santé,
Neuchâtel, Switzerland
VENULET, Jan
Geneva, Switzerland
WEIJER, Charles
Office of Bioethics Education and Research,
Dalhousie University, Halifax,
Nova Scotia, Canada
WENDLER, David
Department of Clinical Bioethics,
National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, Maryland, USA
WIKLER, Daniel
Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy,
Geneva, Switzerland
Appendix 6
COMMENTATORS ON DRAFT GUIDELINES
CIOMS extends its appreciation and thanks to the following

organizations and individuals for their responses to the two versions
of the draft guidelines posted on its website in June 2000 and
January 2002.
ORGANIZATIONS
American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial
Affairs
Australian Health Ethics Committee
British Medical Association
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, USA
Denmark: Danish Ethical Council, Copenhagen, Denmark
European College of Neuropsychopharmacology
European Forum for Good Clinical Practice (Ethics Working Party)
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Associations, Geneva
International Society for Clinical Biostatistics, Singapore
International Society of Drug Bulletins
Medical Research Council (United Kingdom).
National Institutes of Health, USA
Netherlands: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport
Netherlands: Medical Commission, Royal Netherlands Academy of
Arts and Sciences
110
Norway: The National Committee for Medical Research Ethics and

the Regional Committees of Medical Research Ethics in Norway
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Washing-
ton DC
Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, Washington DC, USA
Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine of the Royal Colleges of
Physicians of the United Kingdom
Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency/Depart-
ment for Research Cooperation (SIDA/SAREC)
Swedish Society of Medicine: The Delegation of Medical Ethics of the
Swedish Society of Medicine
Swedish Institute of Biomedical Laboratory Science and its Ethical
Council
Swedish Research Council — Medicine
Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences
United Kingdom: Department of Health, London.
INDIVIDUALS
Abdool Karim, Saleem S. Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research and
Development, University of Natal, Durban, South Africa
Abratt, Raymond, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory, South
Africa
Ashcroft, Richard. Imperial College of Science, Technology and
Medicine, University of London, London, England
Benatar, Solomon. University of Cape Town, Observatory, South
Africa
Box, Joan. Medical Research Council, United Kingdom
Byk, Christian. Association Internationale, Droit, Ethique et Science,
Paris, France
Caine, Marco. The Helsinki Committee at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem
APPENDIX 6 111
Crawley, Francis. European Forum for Good Clinical Practice,

Brussels, Belgium
Fagot-Largeault, Anne. Université de Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne,
Institut d’Histoire et Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques,
Paris, France
Gadd, Elaine. Department of Health, London
Gallacher, Thomas. International Federation of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Associations
Gorovitz, Samuel. Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA
Greco, Dirceu B. Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte,
Brazil
Griffin, David. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
Hillstrom, Scott C. Cry for the World Foundation, New Zealand
Huston, Patricia. National Placebo Initiative, Bureau of Pharma-
ceutical Assessment, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada
Illingworth, Patricia. Department of Philosophy, Northeastern
University, Boston, USA
Khan, Kausar. Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
Kitua, Andrew Y. National Institute for Medical Research, Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania
Kutukdjian, Georges. Director, Division of Human Sciences, Philo-
sophy and Ethics of Science and Technology, UNESCO, Paris,
France
Lane, Ron. Department of Health, London, United Kingdom
Loedin, Agustinus A. Research Ethics Committee of the Eijkman
Institute for Molecular Biology, Jakarta, Indonesia
Lurie, Peter. Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, Washington
DC, USA
Mitsuishi, Tadahiro. Attorney-at-Law, Japan.
Moolten, Frederick. USA
Navarrete, Maria S. Institute of Public Health, Santiago, Chile.
112
Pfleger, Bruce. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Saracci, Rodolfo. International Agency for Research on Cancer/
WHO, Lyon, France
Saunders, John. Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee for Wales;
Committee on Ethical Affairs at the Royal College of Physicians of
London.
Schüklenk, Udo. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,
South Africa.
Spilker, Bertram A. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America, Washington DC, USA
Sprumont, Dominique. Institute of Health Law, University of
Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Temple, Robert J. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US
Food and Drug Administration
Tomori, Oyewale. Nigeria
Urquhart, John. Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht
University, Maastricht, Netherlands; and Palo Alto, California,
USA
Vallotton, Michel. Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences
Vrhovac, Bozidar. Zagreb, Croatia.
Weibel, Ewald. Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences
Wendler, Dave. National Institutes of Health, USA
Wolfe, Sidney M. Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, Wa-
shington DC, USA

CIOMS Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIOMS Guidelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIOMS Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Ethical

Guidelines for Biomedical

12. Equitable distribution of burdens and benefits

The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences

Fernando Lolas Stepke (chair), John Bryant, Leonardo de Castro,

The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences

against exploitation. The commentary to the Guideline concerned

The CIOMS Conference was convened to discuss and, as far as

Comments on the Guidelines are welcome

This is the third in the series of international ethical guidelines for

prescribe another because the superior intervention may be locally

The first international instrument on the ethics of medical research,

1995, Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice for Trials on Pharmaceu-

All research involving human subjects should be conducted in

Respect for persons incorporates at least two fundamental ethical

Beneficence refers to the ethical obligation to maximize benefit and to

Justice refers to the ethical obligation to treat each person in

benefits of participation in research. Differences in distribution of

The term ‘‘research’’ refers to a class of activity designed to develop or

from those records are discussed in International Guidelines for Ethical

externally sponsored research. Other ethical aspects of research are

Scientific review. According to the Declaration of Helsinki (Para-

knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant sources of

Ethical review. The ethical review committee is responsible for

Ethical review of emergency compassionate use of an investigational

other treatment available that is known to be equally effective or

National (centralized) or local review. Ethical review committees may

Committee membership. National or local ethical review committees

own discretion or at the request of the other members. Before

Multi-centre research. Some research projects are designed to be

usually has a set of committees which operate under the direction of a

Sanctions. Ethical review committees generally have no authority to

Potential conflicts of interest related to project support. Increasingly,

Ethical and scientific review. Committees in both the country of the

the research protocol. In short, in respect of host countries either with

research. Informed consent protects the individual’s freedom of

Process. Obtaining informed consent is a process that is begun when

Language. Informing the individual subject must not be simply a

Comprehension. The investigator must then ensure that the prospec-

Documentation of consent. Consent may be indicated in a number of

Waiver of the consent requirement. Investigators should never initiate

Renewing consent. When material changes occur in the conditions or

This is ethically acceptable if an ethical review committee has

Cultural considerations. In some cultures an investigator may enter a

Consent to use for research purposes biological materials (including

Use of medical records and biological specimens. Medical records and

privacy and confidentiality or anonymity are assured, and that the

Secondary use of research records or biological specimens. Investigators

(See also Guidelines 5: Obtaining informed consent: Essential

7) that, after the completion of the study, subjects will be

17) the sponsors of the research, the institutional affiliation

precautions. This is especially true of HIV/AIDS vaccine research (see

Withholding information and deception. Sometimes, to ensure the

whether and how deceived subjects should be informed of the

Intimidation and undue influence. Intimidation in any form invalidates

Risks. Investigators should be completely objective in discussing the

Exception to the requirement for informed consent in studies of

they are in a state to receive it, and their consent to continued

Exception to the requirement of informed consent for inclusion in clinical

acute condition such as sepsis, stroke or myocardial infarction. The