Browsing by Author "Vries, Jantina de"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Policy makers, regulators and researchers’ perspectives on genomics research and the capacity of the National Health Research Act of 2013 to regulate genomics research in Zambia
    (AAS Open Research, 2020) Mweemba, Oliver; Musuku, John; Matenga, Tulani Francis L.; Parker, Michael; Rutakumwa, Rwamahe; Seeley, Janet; Simanga, Twambo; Tindana, Paulina; Vries, Jantina de
    Health research in sub-Saharan Africa takes place against a lengthy history of exploitation and unfair collaboration. This has involved the export of samples and data from the continent for the benefit of institutions and researchers elsewhere. In this paper, we report the perspectives of people involved in conducting genomics research in Zambia and the capacity of the Health Research Act (HRA) of 2013 in regulating genomics research. Methods: We approached 14 purposively selected stakeholders involved in the development or implementation of the HRA in Zambia for in-depth interviews. These were members of research ethics committees, genomics researchers, Ministry of Health policy makers and institutional lawyers. Results: Participants reported that there are benefits in genomics research for Zambia such as diagnosing and treatment of diseases. Participants also expressed concerns, most of which were ethical in nature. Prominent concerns were on consent. Participants’ main concern was the possible misuse of samples in the future. These concerns resonated with the HRA, which prohibits the use of broad consent for the collection of samples and data for future unspecified research. The implications of this is that Zambians may not participate in any kind of health research for which the storage, sharing and reuse of data or samples is envisaged. The restrictive nature of HRA means that genomics research may be excluded from future health research collaborations, thus isolating the country from potentially beneficial health research. Some policy makers also worried the samples and data that comes from such research may be difficult to access by local scientists. Conclusion: In this article, we describe the views of Zambian policymakers on genomics research and the capacity of HRA in regulating genomics research. Our findings are relevant for the Zambian audience, and other African countries that are aiming to regulate health research, especially genomics research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    What constitutes good ethical practice in genomic research in Africa? Perspectives of participants in a genomic research study in Uganda
    (Global Bioethics, 2020) Rutakumwa, Rwamahe; Vries, Jantina de; Parker, Michael; Tindana, Paulina; Mweemba, Oliver; Seeley, Janet
    Previous research has consistently highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement in identifying and developing solutions to ethical challenges in genomic research, especially in Africa where such research is relatively new. In this paper, we examine what constitutes good ethical practice in research, from the perspectives of genomic research participants in Uganda. Our study was part of a multi-site qualitative study exploring these issues in Uganda, Ghana and Zambia. We purposively sampled various stakeholders including genomic research participants, researchers, research ethics committee members, policy makers and community members. This paper presents the findings from in-depth interviews with 27 people with diabetes who had participated in a diabetes genomic study. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. Manual thematic content analysis was conducted using a framework approach. Findings indicate three key requirements that research participants see as vital for genomic research to be more responsive to research participants’ needs and contextual realities: (1) de-emphasising the role of experts and institutions in the consenting process, (2) clarity about the timing and nature of feedback both of findings relevant to the health of individuals and about the broad progress of the study, and (3) more effective support for research participants during and after the study.