IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0307808.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical acceptability of human challenge trials: Consultation with the US public and with research personnel

Author

Listed:
  • James William Benjamin Elsey
  • David Manheim
  • Abigail Marsh
  • Virginia Schmit
  • David Moss

Abstract

Human challenge trials (HCTs) may accelerate the development of treatments and vaccines, and deliver novel insights into the course and consequences of infection. However, HCTs are contentious because they involve purposely exposing volunteers to infection. Consultation with the public and other stakeholders is essential for understanding how HCTs can be most ethically and acceptably pursued. Previous research has found public support for COVID-19 HCTs, but little research has considered public attitudes towards HCTs in principle and the various factors making a trial more or less acceptable. Empirical data on the attitudes of research personnel is also missing. We generated an online survey covering overarching support/opposition towards HCTs, as well as factors of importance for deciding whether or not an HCT is ethically acceptable. Our sample of the US public represents the responses of 1500 participants sampled via Prolific, poststratified to be representative of the general US adult population. We additionally collected a convenience sample of 33 research personnel engaged in phase III clinical trials for infectious diseases. Estimates for the US public suggest substantial support for using HCTs to develop new vaccines, new treatments, and knowledge about diseases, with similarly high support among research personnel. The most important factors in determining acceptability of an HCT were the risk to participants and their comprehension of this risk. The general public, in particular, appear relatively unconcerned about participants’ motivations, and favor higher payment in accordance with risk. This study adds to a growing body of public consultation surrounding HCTs, demonstrating high levels of support for their use in principle–not just in relation to COVID-19. The importance attributed to various ethically-relevant factors can help in designing HCTs with high public acceptance.

Suggested Citation

  • James William Benjamin Elsey & David Manheim & Abigail Marsh & Virginia Schmit & David Moss, 2024. "Ethical acceptability of human challenge trials: Consultation with the US public and with research personnel," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(10), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0307808
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307808
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307808
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307808&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0307808?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Park, David K. & Gelman, Andrew & Bafumi, Joseph, 2004. "Bayesian Multilevel Estimation with Poststratification: State-Level Estimates from National Polls," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 375-385.
    2. Wang, Wei & Rothschild, David & Goel, Sharad & Gelman, Andrew, 2015. "Forecasting elections with non-representative polls," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 980-991.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Temporão, Mickael & Dufresne, Yannick & Savoie, Justin & Linden, Clifton van der, 2019. "Crowdsourcing the vote: New horizons in citizen forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-10.
    2. repec:osf:osfxxx:pg2wt_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Yonatan Ben-Shalom & Ignacio Martinez & Mariel Finucane, "undated". "Risk of Workforce Exit Due to Disability: State Differences in 2003–2016," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 8aed03744a06419dbda68be8c, Mathematica Policy Research.
    4. Skinner, Benjamin T. & Doyle, William R., 2024. "Predicting postsecondary attendance by family income in the United States using multilevel regression with poststratification," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Laura C. Dawkins & Daniel B. Williamson & Stewart W. Barr & Sally R. Lampkin, 2020. "‘What drives commuter behaviour?': a Bayesian clustering approach for understanding opposing behaviours in social surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(1), pages 251-280, January.
    6. Cerina, Roberto & Duch, Raymond, 2020. "Measuring public opinion via digital footprints," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 987-1002.
    7. Montalvo, José G. & Papaspiliopoulos, Omiros & Stumpf-Fétizon, Timothée, 2019. "Bayesian forecasting of electoral outcomes with new parties’ competition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 52-70.
    8. Marcin Hitczenko, 2021. "Sample Bias Related to Household Role," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2021-9, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    9. Bruch, Christian & Felderer, Barbara, 2024. "An Approximation of Joint Distributions of Weighting Variables Using a Pseudo Population Approach," OSF Preprints pg2wt, Center for Open Science.
    10. José Garcia Montalvo & Omiros Papaspiliopoulos & Timothée Stumpf-Fétizon, 2018. "Bayesian forecasting of electoral outcomes with new parties' competition," Economics Working Papers 1624, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    11. Timothée Stumpf-Fétizon & Omiros Papaspiliopoulos & José García-Montalvo, 2018. "Bayesian Forecasting of Electoral Outcomes with new Parties' Competition," Working Papers 1065, Barcelona School of Economics.
    12. Wang, Wei & Rothschild, David & Goel, Sharad & Gelman, Andrew, 2015. "Forecasting elections with non-representative polls," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 980-991.
    13. Mark Richard & Jan Vecer, 2021. "Efficiency Testing of Prediction Markets: Martingale Approach, Likelihood Ratio and Bayes Factor Analysis," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-20, February.
    14. Dimiter Toshkov & Elitsa Kortenska, 2015. "Does Immigration Undermine Public Support for Integration in the European Union?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 910-925, July.
    15. Sakshaug Joseph W. & Wiśniowski Arkadiusz & Ruiz Diego Andres Perez & Blom Annelies G., 2019. "Supplementing Small Probability Samples with Nonprobability Samples: A Bayesian Approach," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 35(3), pages 653-681, September.
    16. Kobayashi, Yoshiharu & Heinrich, Tobias & Bryant, Kristin A., 2021. "Public support for development aid during the COVID-19 pandemic," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    17. Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Bailey, Delia & Blumenau, Jack & Rivers, Douglas, 2020. "Model-based pre-election polling for national and sub-national outcomes in the US and UK," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 399-413.
    18. Andrew Gelman & Christian Hennig, 2017. "Beyond subjective and objective in statistics," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(4), pages 967-1033, October.
    19. José Miguel Mansilla Domínguez & Isabel Font Jiménez & Angel Belzunegui Eraso & David Peña Otero & David Díaz Pérez & Ana María Recio Vivas, 2020. "Risk Perception of COVID−19 Community Transmission among the Spanish Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-15, December.
    20. François t'Serstevens & Roberto Cerina & Giulia Piccillo, 2024. "Mapping the Risk of Spreading Fake-News via Wisdom-of-the-Crowd & MrP," CESifo Working Paper Series 11138, CESifo.
    21. Sean F. Ellis & Olesya M. Savchenko & Kent D. Messer, 2023. "Is a non-representative convenience sample of adults good enough? Insights from an economic experiment," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 293-307, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0307808. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.