Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Emanuel et al. (2004) proposed eight ethical benchmarks to assess the ethical integrity of human participants’ research in low- and middle-income countries: collaborative partnership, social value, scientific validity, fair participant selection, favorable risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent, and respect for recruited participants and their communities. We conducted a retrospective, descriptive analysis of 67 doctoral research proposals submitted between 2016 and 2019 to the Tashkent Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education in Uzbekistan.

Results

While all protocols addressed social value (67/67) and most demonstrated scientific validity (53/67) and collaborative partnership (40/67), far fewer adequately addressed fair participant selection (12/67), favorable risk-benefit ratio (3/67), independent review (3/67), informed consent (4/67), or respect for communities (3/67).

Conclusion

This is the first empirical study to apply the Emanuel framework to doctoral research in Uzbekistan. The findings underscore the need for more systematic integration of these benchmarks into national ethics oversight and academic review procedures.

Keywords

Research ethics Emanuel benchmark Uzbekistan Central Asia doctoral research human participants research research governance low-and-middle-income countries

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aniyozova

Abdurakhmanova

(2020). The current issues of ethical review system in Uzbekistan in the context of COVID-19. Nur-Sultan.

Berekeyeva

Sharplin

Courtney

Sagitova

(2024). Ethical human participant research in Central Asia: A quantitative analysis of attitudes and practices among social science researchers based in the region. Research Ethics, 20(2), 304–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231202232

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), & World Health Organization (WHO) . (1982). Proposed international guidelines for biomedical research involving human participants. CIOMS.

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), & World Health Organization (WHO) . (2016). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. CIOMS. https://cioms.ch/publications/product/international-ethical-guidelines-for-health-related-research-involving-humans/

Emanuel

E. J.

Wendler

Grady

(2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701–2711. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.20.2701

Emanuel

E. J.

Wendler

Killen

Grady

(2004). What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 189(5), 930–937. https://doi.org/10.1086/381709

Fallah

M. P.

Dereje

Temfack

Tajudeen

Kaseya

(2025). A call for an Africa-centric health research ethics framework: A way forward for shaping global health research. The Lancet Global Health, 13(4), e616–e617. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00064-6

Kubar

Abdullakhodjaeva

(2010). The current state of bioethics education in the CIS. Pasteur Institute, 24–32.

Martin

Ancillotti

Slokenberga

Matar

(2024). A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law. BMC Medical Ethics, (25), Article 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-00954-2

10.

Matthews

K. R. W.

Calhoun

(2011). The aging of biomedical research in the United States. PLOS ONE, 6(12), e29738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029738

11.

Omutoko

Amugune

Nyawira

Inwani

Muchoki

Masika

Omosa-Manyonyi

Kamau

K’Apiyo

Jaoko

(2023). Strengthening research ethics oversight in Africa: The Kenyan example. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law, 16(1), e199. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2023.v16i1.199

12.

Silaigwana

Wassenaar

D. R.

(2019). Research ethics committees’ oversight of biomedical research in South Africa: A thematic analysis of ethical issues raised during ethics review of non-expedited protocols. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264618824921

13.

Sithole

(2020). An evaluation of the ethical concerns of a South African Research Ethics Committee using the principles and benchmarks proposed by Emanuel, Wendler, Killen, and Grady (2004): Evaluating 2017–2018 minutes [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of KwaZulu-Natal.

14.

The Belmont Report . (1979). https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/

15.

The Declaration of Helsinki . (1964). https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/

16.

The Nuremberg Code . (1947). https://ori.hhs.gov/content/chapter-3-The-Protection-of-Human-Subjects-nuremberg-code

17.

The Tashkent Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education . (2015). https://tipme.uz/uz/page/2

18.

Timbermann

Orzechowski

Kosenko

Woniak

Steger

(2022). Informed consent in clinical studies involving human participants: Ethical insights of medical researchers in Germany and Poland. Frontiers in Medicine, (9), 901059. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.901059

19.

Tsoka-Gwegweni

J. M.

Wassenaar

D. R.

(2014). Using the Emanuel et al. framework to assess ethical issues raised by a biomedical research ethics committee in South Africa. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(5), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614553172

20.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) . (2020). IRB review of international research. https://irb.byu.edu/irb-review-of-international-research

21.

UNESCO . (2020). Mapping research and innovation in the Republic of Uzbekistan. UNESCO.

22.

Wassenaar

Rattani

(2016). What makes health systems research in developing countries ethical? Application of the Emanuel framework for clinical research to health systems research. Developing World Bioethics, 16(3), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12102

23.

WHO . (2018). Prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases in Uzbekistan: The case for investment. World Health Organization.

Topography of Human Subjects Research Ethics in Uzbekistan: Analysis Using the Emanuel Benchmarks

Abstract

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References