To enjoy the public's trust, the research community must first be clear about what it is expected to do and then avoid the incidents that prevent it from meeting those expectations. Among other things, there are expectations that published scientific results will be reliable, that research has the potential to contribute to the common good, and that research will be conducted ethically. Consequently, the scientific community needs to avoid lapses that prevent it from meeting these three expectations. This requires a strong commitment to trustworthy research practices, as well as mechanisms that diminish lapses that inevitably occur in complex endeavors such as scientific research. The author presents a model to assess the strength of commitment to trustworthy research and explores proven quality assurance mechanisms that can diminish lapses in research injurious to the public's trust. Some mechanisms identify in advance ways that things can go wrong so that steps can be taken to prevent them from going wrong in the first place. Other mechanisms investigate past errors or near misses to discover their causes so that they can be addressed to avoid similar future instances. The author explains why such methods are useful to efforts to promote research worthy of the public's trust.

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) play a critical gatekeeping role in clinical trials. This role is meant to ensure that only those trials that meet certain ethical thresholds proceed through their gate. Two of these thresholds are that the potential benefits of trials are reasonable in relation to risks and that trials are capable of producing a requisite amount of social value. While one ought not expect perfect execution by RECs of their gatekeeping role, one should expect routine success in it. This article reviews a range of evidence showing that substantial numbers of ethically tainted trials are receiving REC approvals. Many of the trials are early phase trials that evidence shows have benefits that may not be reasonable compared with their risks and many others are later trials that evidence shows may lack sufficient social value. The evidence pertains to such matters as methodologically inadequate preclinical studies incapable of supporting the inferences that REC members must make about the prospects for potential benefit needed to offset the risks in early phase trials and sponsorship bias that can cause improperly designed, conducted, analysed and reported later phase trials. The analysis of the evidence makes clear that REC practices need to be strengthened if they are to adequately fulfil their gatekeeping role. The article also explores options that RECs could use in order to improve their gatekeeping function.

There is substantial published evidence showing that countless people enroll each year in ethically deficient clinical trials. Many of the trials are problematic because the quality of the science used to justify their launch may not be sufficiently vetted while many other trials may lack requisite social value. This poses the question: why do people volunteer for them? The answer resides in large part in the fact that informed consent practices have historically masked, rather than disclosed, the information that would alert research candidates to the ethically problematic nature of the trials. The "reasonable person" and "key information" provisions in the revised US Common Rule create the opportunity to correct this historical shortcoming. Two sources are employed to shed light on what the "key information" is that should be disclosed to a "reasonable person": the original disclosure aims of the Nuremberg Code, as well as an extensive body of meta-research evidence. Those sources jointly support a range of new disclosures in the informed consent process that would unmask the heretofore undisclosed information. The resulting proposed new disclosures pertain to the overall success prospects of clinical trials, the quality of the prior research that both forms the basis of clinical trials and informs assessment of their risks and benefits, the potential social value of clinical trials, and the commercial purposes of clinical trials.

It is commonplace for science leaders and others to claim that the future of biomedical research rests in large part upon the public's trust. If true, it behooves the biomedical research community to understand how it avoids taking chances with that trust. This commentary, which builds upon comments of noted trust scholar Russell Hardin about how best to enjoy trust, assumes that the key to being trusted is deserving to be trusted. Thus, it proposes using "deserved trust" to identify ways that the public's trust in biomedical research could be better supported. Employing deserved trust to support the public's trust leads us to consider what it is that the biomedical research community should be trusted to do, examine the evidence about the effectiveness of current safeguards meant to assure that those things routinely get done, and identify new ways to equip individual researchers, research teams, and research institutions to assure that the public's trust in their research is deserved rather than misplaced.

There is substantial published evidence showing that countless people enroll each year in ethically deficient clinical trials. Many of the trials are problematic because the quality of the science used to justify their launch may not be sufficiently vetted while many other trials may lack requisite social value. This poses the question: why do people volunteer for them? The answer resides in large part in the fact that informed consent practices have historically masked, rather than disclosed, the information that would alert research candidates to the ethically problematic nature of the trials. The "reasonable person" and "key information" provisions in the revised US Common Rule create the opportunity to correct this historical shortcoming. Two sources are employed to shed light on what the "key information" is that should be disclosed to a "reasonable person": the original disclosure aims of the Nuremberg Code, as well as an extensive body of meta-research evidence. Those sources jointly support a range of new disclosures in the informed consent process that would unmask the heretofore undisclosed information. The resulting proposed new disclosures pertain to the overall success prospects of clinical trials, the quality of the prior research that both forms the basis of clinical trials and informs assessment of their risks and benefits, the potential social value of clinical trials, and the commercial purposes of clinical trials.

I challenge the "convenient consensus" that He Jiankui is a "bad apple" in order to consider alternative explanations for why He may have ventured down the ill-considered path in his research that he did. The answer I want to proffer is that He was ill-equipped by his education and training in biomedical research to appropriately weigh the competing goods he encountered and thus was not able to be swayed by the clear guidance that basic ethical considerations would have provided. If true, this shows us why, much as we would like to take solace in him being a bad apple, we should be prompted by this episode to focus instead on systems level contributors to He's decisions that, if left unaddressed, will surely lead to similarly reckless episodes by other researchers in the future.