Clinical supplies & logistics
emissions during the CRASH trial, accounting for 39% of the 630t released. Electricity is needed to not only keep labs and administrative centres running, but to store and process data on servers. While trials can’t happen without electricity, centres can be smarter about how they use it.
Making a trial simpler can help here, as it can mean fewer staff and less unnecessary data collection, notes the 2007 report. Reducing the amount of bureaucracy associated with a trial – such as streamlining application processes to ethics committees – can mean it takes less work to do the trial, for example. All excess data inputted electronically also comes with a carbon cost. Companies should always opt for sustainable energy sources, says Richie. This might mean installing on-site renewable sources, such as wind turbines, or swapping suppliers who use fossil fuel energy for those using greener alternatives. Data on a trial’s carbon footprint should also be published, she adds. “We can only speculate [on a trial’s environmental impact] without hard data. There needs to be accountability.”
Plus, straightforward energy-saving changes can be made around the lab, says James Connelly, CEO of not-for-profit organisation My Green Labs, which works to improve sustainability in scientific research. “Just closing the fume hood sash [when it’s not in use] can reduce energy consumption by a third,” he says. “We encourage people to better manage their cold storage units. The ultra-low temperature freezer can use as much energy as a single house.” Changing the temperature from -80C to -70C, when this doesn’t compromise the integrity of the sample, can also lower energy use by a third, he adds. Other ways to reduce power demands include using low-energy light bulbs, timers to turn off lights at night, and motion sensors.
Thinking about trials differently For sustainable trials to be the norm, the environmental impact of research needs to become a standard consideration during the planning process. This means assessing the impact versus the potential benefits of the intervention, for both people and the planet, right at the beginning. A paper published this year in the Journal of Medical Ethics co-authored by Richie outlines a possible ethical framework for doing so. It prompts researchers to ask: is this work of scientific quality? Is it beneficial to the participants, the community, society and the environment – and is it conducted fairly and respectfully towards these parties? And, crucially:
Clinical Trials Insight /
www.worldpharmaceuticals.net
do the benefits outweigh the risks on these fronts? Funders can also take this approach to determine which trials justify their carbon footprint and that they should therefore move forward with. Trials that would benefit a wider amount of people might then be prioritised, for example.
If temperatures can be made less severe without hindering a test’s efficacy then less energy can be used.
“Clinical trials get done on everything from superficial cosmetic procedures like Botox, to life- saving treatments, to things that get financially prioritised, like Covid over Zika.”
Dr Cristina Richie
“We need to look at what will actually save lives,” says Richie. “Is this something that everyone in the world can have, or is this something that five people in New York get?” Treweek agrees. “Funders can send very strong signals,” he says. “We basically chase the money; we jump through the hoops that funders set for us.” If sustainability were part of their trial criteria, then it would become a priority for researchers, he adds.
The same might be said of journals and regulators, who currently don’t require carbon footprint data to be submitted. In future, Richie hopes to see the carbon emissions of a drug listed like a side effect would be. This could factor into patient, prescriber and purchaser decisions – especially if they’re choosing between drugs that are similar. But, she stresses, what’s most important is that the field takes action today. “We need to better the lives of people now. Just making things better now should be persuasive as an argument to get people to change.” ●
62%
Of 1,640 clinical trials analysed
were deemed “bad”. Trials
17
ArtPanupat/
Shutterstock.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53
