Volunteering to be infected with COVID — for science! (with Josh Morrison)

Apr 6, 2022

In this engaging discussion, guest Josh Morrison, a serial social entrepreneur, dives into the innovative world of human challenge trials for vaccine development. He explores how these trials could expedite research while addressing ethical complexities and the importance of informed consent. Morrison highlights the need for a balanced approach to accelerate critical health interventions and critiques the often cautious nature of ethics boards. The conversation also touches on the emotional intricacies of altruism in organ donation and its broader societal implications.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Challenge Studies

Challenge studies offer a faster way to evaluate vaccines and learn about diseases.
They involve deliberately exposing volunteers to infection in controlled settings.

INSIGHT

Ideal COVID Challenge Trial

Early COVID challenge trials could have determined vaccine efficacy and immune responses.
They could also compare responses between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-1.

INSIGHT

Infectious Dose Trials

Initial challenge trials determine the minimum infectious dose, informing future studies.
This helps in understanding disease progression and immune responses from the moment of exposure.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

Read the full transcript here.

How can we develop vaccines more quickly? What kinds of study designs are used (or could be used) during vaccine development? In pandemic situations, we need to roll out vaccines quickly; but even if we can develop and test a vaccine quickly and thoroughly, how confident can we be that there won't be long-term risks? Between ethics and pragmatics, which facet should communicators emphasize when trying to convince organizations and institutions to adopt certain vaccine development strategies? Informed consent is, of course, a hugely important requirement for using human volunteers in challenge trials; so if some people are informed, eager, and willing to volunteer their health and safety for such trials in order to aid vaccine development, then why aren't they being used more (if at all)? Since IRBs are often "all brakes and no gas", could they be given powers to accelerate research in addition to their current powers to slow or halt research? How can bioethics reviews be improved?

Josh Morrison is a serial social entrepreneur and aspiring effective altruist who has founded 1Day Sooner, Waitlist Zero, and the Rikers Debate Project. His work — in the fields of clinical trials, living organ donation, and criminal justice reform — focuses on empowering particular identity groups (research participants, kidney donors, and incarcerated people) to improve decision-making processes so as to achieve impactful policy. His projects have been covered globally in outlets such as the New York Times, CNN, the Financial Times, the BBC, Der Spiegel, Asahi Shimbun, and the South China Morning Post. His writing has been published in the Washington Post, the American Journal of Bioethics, Clinical Infectious Disease, Vaccine, Risk Analysis, Vox, STAT News, and BMJ Opinion. You can email him at josh@1daysooner.org.

Staff

Spencer Greenberg — Host / Director
Josh Castle — Producer
Ryan Kessler — Audio Engineer
Uri Bram — Factotum
Janaisa Baril — Transcriptionist

Music

Affiliates

[Read more]