Retrospective research: What are the ethical and legal requirements?

Retrospective research is conducted on already available data and/or biologic material. Whether such research requires that patients specifically consent to the use of "their" data continues to stir controversy. From a legal and ethical point of view, it depends on several factors. The main criteria to be considered are whether the data or the sample is anonymous, whether the researcher is the one who collected it and whether the patient was told of the possible research use. In Switzerland, several laws delineate the procedure to be followed. The definition of "anonymous" is open to some interpretation. In addition, it is debatable whether consent waivers that are legally admissible for data extend to research involving human biological samples. In a few years, a new Swiss federal law on human research could clarify the regulatory landscape. Meanwhile, hospital-internal guidelines may impose stricter conditions than required by federal or cantonal law. Conversely, Swiss and European ethical texts may suggest greater flexibility and call for a looser interpretation of existing laws. The present article provides an overview of the issues for physicians, scientists, ethics committee members and policy makers involved in retrospective research in Switzerland. It aims at provoking more open discussions of the regulatory problems and possible future legal and ethical solutions.

Immunology taught by lung dendritic cells.

Dendritic cells (DCs) are leukocytes specialised in the uptake, processing, and presentation of antigen and fundamental in regulating both innate and adaptive immune functions. They are mainly localised at the interface between body surfaces and the environment, continuously scrutinising incoming antigen for the potential threat it may represent to the organism. In the respiratory tract, DCs constitute a tightly enmeshed network, with the most prominent populations localised in the epithelium of the conducting airways and lung parenchyma. Their unique localisation enables them to continuously assess inhaled antigen, either inducing tolerance to inoffensive substances, or initiating immunity against a potentially harmful pathogen. This immunological homeostasis requires stringent control mechanisms to protect the vital and fragile gaseous exchange barrier from unrestrained and damaging inflammation, or an exaggerated immune response to an innocuous allergen, such as in allergic asthma. During DC activation, there is upregulation of co-stimulatory molecules and maturation markers, enabling DC to activate naïve T cells. This activation is accompanied by chemokine and cytokine release that not only serves to amplify innate immune response, but also determines the type of effector T cell population generated. An increasing body of recent literature provides evidence that different DC subpopulations, such as myeloid DC (mDC) and plasmacytoid DC (pDC) in the lungs occupy a key position at the crossroads between tolerance and immunity. This review aims to provide the clinician and researcher with a summary of the latest insights into DC-mediated pulmonary immune regulation and its relevance for developing novel therapeutic strategies for various disease conditions such as infection, asthma, COPD, and fibrotic lung disease.

Authorship in scientific publications: analysis and recommendations.

In 2008, a Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences working group chaired by Professor Emilio Bossi issued a "Memorandum on scientific integrity and the handling of misconduct in the scientific context", together with a paper setting out principles and procedures concerning integrity in scientific research. In the Memorandum, unjustified claims of authorship in scientific publications are referred to as a form of scientific misconduct - a view widely shared in other countries. In the Principles and Procedures, the main criteria for legitimate authorship are specified, as well as the associated responsibilities. It is in fact not uncommon for disputes about authorship to arise with regard to publications in fields where research is generally conducted by teams rather than individuals. Such disputes may concern not only the question who is or is not to be listed as an author but also, frequently, the precise sequence of names, if the list is to reflect the various authors' roles and contributions. Subjective assessments of the contributions made by the individual members of a research group may differ substantially. As scientific collaboration - often across national boundaries - is now increasingly common, ensuring appropriate recognition of all parties is a complex matter and, where disagreements arise, it may not be easy to reach a consensus. In addition, customs have changed over the past few decades; for example, the practice of granting "honorary" authorship to an eminent researcher - formerly not unusual - is no longer considered acceptable. It should be borne in mind that the publications list has become by far the most important indicator of a researcher's scientific performance; for this reason, appropriate authorship credit has become a decisive factor in the careers of young researchers, and it needs to be managed and protected accordingly. At the international and national level, certain practices have therefore developed concerning the listing of authors and the obligations of authorship. The Scientific Integrity Committee of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences has collated the relevant principles and regulations and formulated recommendations for authorship in scientific publications. These should help to prevent authorship disputes and offer guidance in the event of conflicts.