North-South Collaborative Research Research Articles

Benefit sharing in genomic and biobanking research in Uganda: Perceptions of researchers and research ethics committee members.

Background: Genomic and biobanking research has increased in Africa over the past few years. This has raised pertinent ethical, legal, and societal concerns for stakeholders such as sample or data ownership, commercialization, and benefit sharing. There is limited awareness of the concept of benefit sharing by stakeholders in sub-Saharan Africa. Objective: This study aimed to explore the perceptions of researchers and research ethics committee members on benefit sharing in international collaborative genomic and biobanking research. Methods: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 researchers and 19 research ethics committee members. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results. Results: Six themes emerged from the data and these included perceptions on the benefits of genomic and biobanking research; discussion of benefit sharing with participants during the informed consent process; legal implications of benefit sharing and the role of material transfer agreements; equity and fairness in sharing the benefits of genomic research; perceived barriers to fair benefit sharing; and recommendations for fostering fair and equitable benefit sharing in genomic and biobanking research. Most respondents clearly understood the various forms of benefits of genomic and biobanking research and opined that such benefits should be fairly and equitably shared with low and middle-income country researchers and their institutions, and research communities. The perceived barriers to the fair benefit sharing unfavorable include power disparities, weak research regulatory frameworks, and lack of scientific integrity. Conclusion: Overall, respondents believed that the distribution of the advantages of genomic and biobanking research in North-South collaborative research was not equitable nor fair, and that the playing field was not leveled. Therefore, we advocate the following for fair and equitable benefit sharing: Building the capacities and empowering research scientists in developing nations; strengthening regulatory frameworks and extending the purview of the research ethics committee in the development and implementation of material transfer agreements; and meaningfully involving local research communities in benefit sharing negotiations.

Breaking monologues in collaborative research: bridging knowledge systems through a listening-based dialogue of wisdom approach

The urgent need to address the sustainability issues of the Anthropocene requires a dialogue capable of bridging different knowledge systems, values, and interests. This dialogue is considered one of the most crucial challenges in collaborative research approaches. With this research, we seek to break with monologues in collaborative research by offering a decolonising methodological approach that combines the notion of dialogue of wisdom, communication theories and ethical principles of Andean philosophy. The methodological framework, the circle of dialogue of wisdom, is the result of an iterative action–reflection process developed in a North–South collaborative research project for territorial planning in Bolivia. Our praxis confirms the potentials offered by a listening-based dialogue for (i) dealing with knowledge–power relations in collaborative research projects, (ii) promoting mutual learning and knowledge co-creation between different knowledge systems, (iii) re-valuating local and Indigenous knowledge, and (iv) decolonising the society–science–policy dialogue.

Review on Multiple Ethical Review in North–South Collaborative Research: the Experience of the Ebola-Tx Trial in Guinea

Review on Multiple Ethical Review in North–South Collaborative Research: the Experience of the Ebola-Tx Trial in Guinea

Clinical Research in Neglected Tropical Diseases: The Challenge of Implementing Good Clinical (Laboratory) Practices.

Clinical Research in Neglected Tropical Diseases: The Challenge of Implementing Good Clinical (Laboratory) Practices.

The experiences of lecturers in African, Asian and European universities in preparing and delivering blended health research methods courses: a qualitative study

BackgroundGrowing demand for Global Health (GH) training and the internationalisation of education requires innovative approaches to training. Blended learning (BL, a form of e-learning combining face-to-face or real-time interaction with computer-assisted learning) is a promising approach for increasing GH research capacity in low- to middle-income countries. Implementing BL, however, requires additional skills and efforts from lecturers. This paper explores lecturers’ views and experiences of delivering BL courses within the context of two north–south collaborative research capacity building projects, ARCADE HSSR and ARCADE RSDH.DesignWe used a qualitative approach to explore the experiences and perceptions of 11 lecturers involved in designing and delivering BL courses collaboratively across university campuses in four countries (South Africa, Uganda, India and Sweden). Data were collected using interviews in person or via Skype. Inductive qualitative content analysis was used.ResultsParticipants reported that they felt BL increased access to learning opportunities and made training more flexible and convenient for adult learners, which were major motivations to engage in BL. However, despite eagerness to implement and experiment with BL courses, they lacked capacity and support, and found the task time consuming. They needed to make compromises between course objectives and available technological tools, in the context of poor Internet infrastructure.ConclusionsBL courses have the potential to build bridges between low- and middle-income contexts and between lecturers and students to meet the demand for GH training. Lecturers were very motivated to try these approaches but encountered obstacles in implementing BL courses. Considerable investments are needed to implement BL and support lecturers in delivering courses.

Multiple ethical review in North-South collaborative research: the experience of the Ebola-Tx trial in Guinea.

The process of double ethical review involves the ethics committees (ECs) in the country(ies) of the research site(s) and of the sponsor. This paper aims to assess the experience of the double ethical review in the Ebola-Tx trial, and to make general recommendations for research conducted during public health emergencies.

Why language matters: insights and challenges in applying a social determination of health approach in a North-South collaborative research program

BackgroundFocus on “social determinants of health” provides a welcome alternative to the bio-medical illness paradigm. However, the tendency to concentrate on the influence of “risk factors” related to living and working conditions of individuals, rather than to more broadly examine dynamics of the social processes that affect population health, has triggered critical reaction not only from the Global North but especially from voices the Global South where there is a long history of addressing questions of health equity. In this article, we elaborate on how focusing instead on the language of “social determination of health” has prompted us to attempt to apply a more equity-sensitive approaches to research and related policy and praxis.DiscussionIn this debate, we briefly explore the epistemological and historical roots of epidemiological approaches to health and health equity that have emerged in Latin America to consider its relevance to global discourse. In this region marked by pronounced inequity, context-sensitive concepts such as “collective health” and “critical epidemiology” have been prominent, albeit with limited acknowledgement by the Global North. We illustrate our attempts to apply a social determination approach (and the “4 S” elements of bio-Security, Sovereignty, Solidarity and Sustainability) in five projects within our research collaboration linking researchers and knowledge users in Ecuador and Canada, in diverse settings (health of healthcare workers; food systems; antibiotic resistance; vector borne disease [dengue]; and social circus with street youth).ConclusionsWe argue that the language of social determinants lends itself to research that is more reductionist and beckons the development of different skills than would be applied when adopting the language of social determination. We conclude that this language leads to more direct analysis of the systemic factors that drive, promote and reinforce disparities, while at the same time directly considering the emancipatory forces capable of countering negative health impacts. It follows that “reverse innovation” must not only recognize practical solutions being developed in low and middle income countries, but must also build on the strengths of the theoretical-methodological reasoning that has emerged in the South.

Nesting doctoral students in collaborative North–South partnerships for health systems research

BackgroundThe European Union (EU) supports North–South Partnerships and collaborative research projects through its Framework Programmes and Horizon 2020. There is limited research on how such projects can be harnessed to provide a structured platform for doctoral level studies as a way of strengthening health system research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the challenges of, and facilitating factors for, ‘nesting’ doctoral students in North–South collaborative research projects. The term nesting refers to the embedding of the processes of recruiting, supervising, and coordinating doctoral students in the overall research plan and processes.DesignThis cross-sectional qualitative study was undertaken by the EU-funded QUALMAT Project. A questionnaire was implemented with doctoral students, supervisors, and country principal investigators (PIs), and content analysis was undertaken.ResultsCompleted questionnaires were received from nine doctoral students, six supervisors, and three country PIs (86% responses rate). The doctoral students from SSA described high expectations about the input they would receive (administrative support, equipment, training, supervision). This contrasted with the expectations of the supervisors for proactivity and self-management on the part of the students. The rationale for candidate selection, and understandings of the purpose of the doctoral students in the project were areas of considerable divergence. There were some challenges associated with the use of the country PIs as co-supervisors. Doctoral student progress was at times impeded by delays in the release of funding instalments from the EU. The paper provides a checklist of essential requirements and a set of recommendations for effective nesting of doctoral students in joint North–South projects.ConclusionThere are considerable challenges to the effective nesting of doctoral students within major collaborative research projects. However, ways can be found to overcome them. The nesting process ultimately helped the institutions involved in this example to take better advantage of the opportunities that collaborative projects offer to foster North–South partnerships as a contribution to the strengthening of local research capacity.

Challenges of non‐commercial multicentre North‐South collaborative clinical trials

The last decade has witnessed a substantial increase of multi-centre, public health-oriented clinical trials in poor countries. However, non-commercial research groups have less staff and financial resources than traditional commercial sponsors, so the trial teams have to be creative to comply with Good Clinical Practices (GCP) requirements. According to the recent experience of a large multicentre trial on antimalarials, major challenges result from the complexity of multiple ethical review, the costs of in-depth monitoring at several sites, setting up an adequate Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP) framework, lack of insurers in host countries, and lack of adequate non-commercial data management software. Public research funding agencies need to consider these challenges in their funding policies. They also could support common spaces where North-South collaborative research groups may share critical information, such as on research insurance and open-source, GCP-compliant software. WHO should update its GCP guidelines, which date back to 1995, to incorporate the perspectives and needs of non-commercial clinical research.

Space weather research in Brazil

Recent Brazilian ionospheric and magnetospheric research related to Space Weather is described. New projects aimed to Space Weather forecasting and monitoring are presented and discussed in the context of North–South collaborative research Programs.

North-South Collaborative Research in Education

SUMMARY The nature of North‐South collaboration on educational research is heavily influenced by the existence of external education aid projects in the Third World. Donors require evaluations of projects: they are torn between asking Third World researchers to carry out — and legitimate — this function, or First World researchers, because they want ‘objectivity’. In general, Third World researchers do not participate in transnational research on equal terms — they must be more involved in setting research agendas. RESUMEN Colaboracion Norte‐Sur en la investigacion educacional La naturaleza de la colaboracion Norte‐Sur en la investigacion educacional, esta fuertemente influenciada por la existencia de proyectos externos de ayuda a la educacion en el Tercer Mundo. Los donantes requieren evaluaciones de los proyectos, estando en la disyuntiva de buscar investigadores en el Tercer Mundo para desempenar y legitimar esta funcion o en el Primer Mundo porque desean ‘objetividad’. En general, los investigadores del Tercer Mundo no participan en iguales condiciones en la investigacion transnacional, ya que deben estar mas involucrados en el establecimiento de los programas de investigacion. SOMMAIRE La collaboration Nord‐Sud dans la recherche sur I'education La nature de la collaboration Nord‐Sud dans la recherche sur l'education est fortement influencee par l'existence dans le tiers‐monde de projets d'aide pedagogique venant de l'exterieur. Les donateurs demandent des evaluations de projets: ils ont l'embarras du choix entre demander aux chercheurs du tiers‐monde d'en prendre soin et de legitimer cette fonction, ou aux chercheurs du premier‐monde parce qu'ils veulent une ‘objectivite’. En general, les chercheurs du tiers‐monde ne participent pas a part egale aux recherches transnationales — leur participation doit etre plus importante dans l'etablissement des programmes de recherche.