Researchers, as well as individuals and institutions that oversee their conduct, sometimes have conflicts of interest that weaken or render ineffective efforts to protect human research subjects. This article analyzes United States and international standards used to address conflicts of interest and reviews evidence regarding compliance. It finds current standards are insufficient and recommends that the federal government and international organizations adopt stronger legal standards that require resolving most significant conflicts of interest and specifying how to manage conflicts of interest not resolved.

Every day, companies collect health information from customers and analyze it for commercial purposes. This poses a significant threat to privacy, particularly as the Fourth Amendment protection of this deeply personal information is limited. Generally, law enforcement officers do not need probable cause and a warrant to access these private health information databases; only a subpoena is required, and sometimes nothing at all. The Fourth Amendment protections for health information may, however, have changed after the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States, which held that the Fourth Amendment protects people from warrantless searches of historical cell-site location information possessed by their cell phone providers. The Court explained that, because of the nature of historical cell-site location information, individuals retain a reasonable expectation of privacy despite the information being in the possession of a third party. In reaching its holding, the Supreme Court considered the type of data, the uniqueness of cell-site location information, the impact of technological advancement on privacy, the voluntariness of the disclosure, and the property rights associated with the records. Many of these factors could support heightened Fourth Amendment protection for health information. This Article argues that Carpenter v. United States provides additional protections for future searches of health information in private databases.

Informed consent matters — so does protecting people from infectious diseases. This paper examines what the appropriate informed consent process for vaccines should look like and how the process is conceptualized by law and health authorities. Drawing on the extensive theoretical and empirical literature on informed consent and vaccination, this article sets out what an ideal informed consent process for vaccination would consist of, highlighting the need for autonomous decisions. To be autonomous, decisions need to be based on full, accessible information and reached without coercion. We suggest that the information provided must address the nature of the procedure — including benefits to the child, benefits to society, and risks. Parents should have their concerns and misconceptions addressed. The information needs to be accessible and include an opportunity to ask questions. Based on this ideal model we examined in detail the legal framework surrounding informed consent to vaccination and the process as conceptualized by health authorities in two countries, Israel and the United States, to assess whether they meet the requirements. These two countries are similar in some of their values, for example, the importance of individual autonomy, and face similar problems related to vaccine hesitancy. At the same time, there are meaningful differences in their vaccine policies and the current structures of their informed consent processes, allowing for a meaningful comparison. We found neither country met our ideal informed consent process, and suggested improvements both to the materials and to the processes used to obtain informed consent.