Informed consent and trial prioritization for human subject research during the COVID ‐ 19 pandemic. Stakeholder experiences and viewpoints.

Background: Very little is known about the practice ‐ oriented challenges and mitigation strategies for effective and efficient translation of informed consent and study prioritization in times of a pandemic. This stakeholder interview study aimed to identify the full spectrum of challenges and mitigation strategies for informed consent and study prioritization in a pandemic setting. Methods: We performed semi ‐ structured interviews with German stakeholders involved in human subject research during the COVID ‐ 19 pandemic. We continued sampling and thematic text analysis of interview transcripts until thematic saturation of challenges and mitigation strategies was reached. Results: We conducted 21 interviews with investigators, oversight bodies, funders and research support units. For the first topic informed consent we identified three main categories: consent challenges, impact of consent challenges on clinical research, and potential response strategies for consent challenges. For the second topic prioritization of trials, we identified two main categories: need for prioritization of clinical studies and potential response strategies for prioritization of clinical studies. All main categories are further specified with subcategories. A supplementary table provides original quotes from the interviews for all subcategories. Discussion: Mitigation strategies for challenges with informed consent and study prioritization partly share commo n ground. High quality procedures for study prioritization, for example, seem to be a core mitigation strategy in dealing with informed consent challenges. Especially in a research environment with particularly high uncertainty regarding potential treatment effects and further limitations for valid informed consent should the selection of clinical trials be ve ry well justified from


Introduction
One of the most challenging part of a pandemic such as COVID-19 is the lack of evidence-based knowledge about the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of this new disease.In a very short time, therefore, a worldwide need for research is emerging.The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in thousands of clinical trials on the same disease being planned, reviewed, funded, conducted and published worldwide within a few months [1].As of June 2020, more than 2300 trials were registered in the clinicaltrials.govregistry, and more than half of these were interventional trials.This extremely high number of clinical trials, combined with the intense time pressure, very uncertain evidence, and pronounced infection control measures, equally led to an amplification of many research ethics challenges and, in some cases, even very pandemic-or COVID-19-specific challenges [2].From a legal and ethical perspective, it is undisputed that even in pandemic or other exceptional situations, research ethical standards must be adhered to in order to protect study participants [3].Based on the our own survey results [2], a scoping literature review and informal discussion with key informants for human subject research on COVID-19 in Germany led to two topics that are of particular practical and ethical relevance: challenges with informed consent and challenges with prioritizing clinical trials.
The informed consent process shall allow eligible patients to make their own judgments about benefits, risks/burdens, and other relevant aspects that come with study participation.Based on these judgements the patients make informed decisions about whether to participate or not.Valid informed consent exists only if the patients concerned were a) competent to make decisions in the situation in question, b) received the relevant information, c) understood it, and d) were free from coercion to decide for or against consent.Critical care settings in general bear several challenges for ensuring a valid consent process due to difficult patient-and context-related circumstances that decrease decision making competence [3,4].A pandemic situation with social distancing measures in place and high uncertainty regarding potentially effective treatments can further aggravate these challenges.
At the same time the efficient and effective recruitment of eligible patients for clinical studies to investigate pandemic-specific prevention or therapy approaches is of utmost importance.Prioritization of clinical studies that is the ranking of more or less important trials might become relevant, for example, due to a shortage of eligible patients.If all planned trials recruit at the same time but too little patients are eligible, clinical trials might face recruitment failures or trialists compete in recruitment activities.Recent studies showed that many clinical trials, for example in Germany, failed due to insufficient recruitment [5].Prioritization might also be important if too many studies are conducted in an inefficient or even harmful way.For example, studies showed that many trials investigated the same therapeutic approach at the same time [6].
While some conceptual papers discussed COVID-19 specific challenges for informed consent [7] and study prioritization [8], very little is known about the practice-oriented challenges and mitigation strategies for effective and efficient translation of informed consent and study prioritization in times of a pandemic.The objective of this stakeholder interview study, therefore, was to identify the spectrum of challenges and mitigation strategies for informed consent and study prioritization in a pandemic setting.The results of the interview study shall inform the development of practice-Procedure: All potential interview participants received an email including study information (supplementary table S1) and the informed consent document (supplementary table S2).All participants provided written informed consent.We conducted the interviews via videoconferencing between March 2021 and July 2021.Interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes.One team member led the interview (LW, SW or DS, all trained in qualitative research methods), while another team member observed and made notes on its process and content (LW, SW, DS or AF).All interviews were guided using a semi-structured topic guide (supplementary table S3).It focused on challenges and strategies for informed consent and prioritization in the context of Covid-19 trials and was pilot tested with researchers of our institution.After each interview, the team conducted a peer-debriefing.A transcription company transcribed the interviews under a confidentiality agreement.MAXQDA 2020 was used for the analysis of the interview material.
Data analysis: We used qualitative content analysis according to Mayring (2010) [9].The analysis consisted of an inductive development of thematic categories.The transcripts were coded by SW and 10 transcripts were verified (second coding) by AF.All codes and discrepancies within the coding were discussed and further modified within the research team (SW, LW, AF, SGS, DS) until a consensus was reached.

Demographics
We conducted 21 semi-structured in-depth interviews with 21 participants to reach thematic (qualitative) saturation.Altogether, we contacted 51 stakeholders, which gives a response rate of 42%.Our sample included physicians working in clinical research (principal investigators and nonprincipal investigators), heads of clinical departments that were responsible for the enrollment of patients with COVID-19 in clinical studies, representatives from clinical study centers, members of research ethics committees, and a public funder.For complete demographics see table 1.
. For the first topic informed consent we identified three main categories: consent challenges, impact of consent challenges on clinical research, and potential response strategies for consent challenges.For the second topic prioritization of trials, we identified two main categories: need for prioritization of clinical studies, potential response strategies for prioritization of clinical studies.All main categories were further specified with first and second level subcategories (see table 2 for an overview).In the following we give a narrative overview of the identified main and subcategories.The corresponding original quotes from the interviews can be found in supplementary table S4 Informed Consent

Time pressure
Various interviewees emphasized that they needed to obtain the informed consent under increased time pressure.Often this was due to the 'rapid deterioration of the health condition of patients' with COVID-19 (C1).Furthermore, interviewees indicated the need to 'reduce contact time' to minimize the risk of infection (C2).

Isolation and hygiene conditions
Various interviewees indicated 'difficulties in building the doctor-patient-relationship' due to the intended contact restrictions and the protective clothing (C3).Within the strict isolation conditions, the 'number of patient contacts' and the duration of these were reduced in order to minimize the spread of the virus (C4).In addition, it was highlighted that the 'reduced accessibility to legal guardians' (C5) and the 'contact restrictions for relatives' (C6) had negative impact on informed consent procedures.

Overburdening the patient
Interviewees reported several aspects of the pandemic situation that carried a risk to overburden the patient and thus weaken the quality of the informed consent procedure.Some patients were confronted with 'parallel/competitive study recruitment' which could cause distress at the patient side (C7).Patients often had difficulties in 'understanding due to complexity' of informed consent documents.This was further complicated by the pandemic context (C8).The informed consent procedure could especially overburden those patients that already suffered 'severe symptomatology' and rapid disease progression (C9).Furthermore, some interviewees mentioned an 'increased risk of therapeutic misunderstanding' when the disease is rather novel (C10).

Impact of consent challenges on clinical research
The challenges around appropriate consent procedures for COVID-19 trials had an impact on conducting clinical research: Heterogenous ethics review Some interviewees mentioned 'heterogenous ethics review' (C11).They referred to an IRB decision that forced to exclude those trial participants that initially gave consent but loose the decision making competence over the course of the trial due to disease progression.Other IRBs allowed the retention of these trial participants.

Delay and recruitment failure
Interviewees pointed to the potential 'delay' (C12) of conducting trials or even 'stops/recruitment failures' (C13) that result, for example, from difficulties to contact legal proxies during a pandemic.

Bias
Interviewees further pointed to the risk that even in conducted studies the exclusion of critically ill patients due to consent limitations would 'introduce important bias' (C14). .

Potential response strategies for consent challenges
Opt-in consent as ethical standard Despite the challenges experienced, several interviewees emphasized the informed consent and the self-determination of patients as the ethical standard with particular 'relevance for interventional studies' (C15).In addition to patient-centered considerations, some interviewees addressed the protective function of the informed consent for potential 'conflicts of interest' of clinician investigators (C16).

Secondary-use of patient data
Regarding non-interventional studies, various interviewees suggested the implementation of a 'broad consent model' for the use of routine data and biomaterials (C17).The opportunity to learn immediately from routine care with legitimate access to routine data was emphasized.By pointing to the potentially high social value of secondary use of patient data during a pandemic interviewees suggested an 'opt-out model' (C18) and a discussion on when even a 'no consent model' for the secondary use of patient data might be appropriate (P19).

Patients incapable to give consent
When discussing how to better prepare for potential future pandemics nearly all interviewees expressed the need to implement consent strategies for those patients who are incapable to give consent.Interviewees highlighted the 'need of consistent IRB requirements' especially for study participants who lose their consciousness after prior consent (C20).Several interviewees described the 'deferred and legal proxy consent' (C21) as an appropriate option.However they referred how difficult and challenging it is for relatives to make such a proxy decision on trial participation especially in a pandemic situation.Some interviewees mentioned the option of 'alternative proxy decision maker' (C22) such as physicians or ethics committees.

Patient protection
Interviewees described that if prioritization of clinical trials could help reduce unnecessary risks that might come with participation in less well justified trials this would support patient protection and thus 'improve risk-benefit assessment' of planned clinical trials (P1).Prioritization could also 'prevent the overburdening of patients' that are asked from different physicians at the same time to participate in their clinical trials (P2).

Validity and efficiency
Interviewees mentioned the need to 'reduce the number of parallel/redundant studies' that were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic (P3).Several interviewees further highlighted that the designs of COVID-19 trials often lacked measures to increase the robustness and that the reporting quality of study protocols was low.A more explicit prioritization process might therefore 'improve the quality of clinical trials' (P4) and could 'avoid that trials are conducted with insufficient resources and expertise' (P5).As above mentioned, in some occasions one patient was asked to participate in several studies illustrates the benefit of prioritization measures to 'reduce inefficiencies' due to competitive recruitment (P6).

Relevance
Numerous interviewees pointed out that several research questions addressed in COVID-19 studies lacked relevance.Prioritization could therefore 'support the relevance' of clinical studies (P7).Some interviewees commented on important criteria for prioritization and most of them mentioned clinical relevance as a top criterion.Some interviewees criticized that most studies investigated different .drug treatments and only few procedures for COVID-19 such as lung ventilation.Therefore, more explicit prioritization could not only select among already planned studies but also 'identify patientoriented knowledge gaps' (P8).Interviewees mentioned that prioritization also becomes relevant in 'allocating the scarce resource of biomaterials' such as lung tissue from patients with COVID-19 (P9).

Lack of explicit prioritization
Our study did not aim to gather quantitative information about how often our interview participants experienced explicit prioritization on which trials to conduct and which not.We want to highlight, however, that from all 21 interviewees engaged in conducting or coordinating clinical research all except one reported that they did not experience any type of explicit prioritization of clinical studies.Several interviewees stressing this 'lack of prioritization' at the same time highlighted the different needs for prioritization as presented above (P10).

Central coordination and collaboration
Interviewees repeatedly emphasized that central coordination via, for example, a 'national board' (P11) and 'national cooperation' (P12) could be helpful to prioritize clinical studies.The RECOVERY trial [10] and other WHO studies were mentioned as having created relevant evidence via respective coordination and collaboration efforts.In order to profit from the specific expertise and study ideas at individual university hospitals interviewees proposed a 'central registry' (P13).Another interviewee suggested the development of a procedure for 'ad-hoc expert groups' (P14).This ad hoc expert groups should be set up for specific urgent topics with members from different institutes that jointly discuss and design a specific study.Interviewees highlighted that central coordination could also improve 'efficiency in study planning' (P15) on a national level that might allow Germany to better participate in international activities such as the WHO studies.Furthermore, central coordination was also mentioned as a way to support 'effective recruitment of special patientgroups' (P16).Additionally, interviewees highlighted that the 'management of conflict of interests' could be supported by more central coordination and collaboration (P17).

Study design
Interviewees mentioned that study designs like 'multicenter study' (P18) or 'adaptive study designs' (P19) could be helpful to improve recruitment and efficiency.

Alignment with funding
While discussing the issue of prioritization different interviewees mentioned a lack of public calls for therapeutic studies.Prioritization should align with opportunities for 'funding priority studies' (P20) and 'calls for priority topics' (P21).Effective prioritization is further dependent on 'efficient funding procedures' (P22) and 'fair funding procedures' (P23).The fairness of funding was also contextualized as a consequence of more explicit prioritization if the relevance of certain research questions receives more priority than for example the size of a university.'Sustainable funding' (P24) becomes important to make the prioritization procedures effective.

Pandemic policy on use/ownership of patient data
Several interviewees pointed out that a strong 'agreement for secondary use of data and biomaterials' is needed for an effective and fair prioritization in the secondary use of patient data and biomaterials (P25).To support this agreement a 'regulation on data use and access' is one important aspect that should be clarified upfront in preparing for pandemics (P26).

Professionalization of clinical research
In elaborating strategies and success conditions for prioritization of clinical studies several interviewees pointed out that more 'competence in clinical research' (P27) is needed in Germany.During the pandemic, sometimes people with insufficient training in study design and other clinical .research related competencies organized and conducted clinical research.Moreover, interviewees pointed out that the need for 'fair play among scientists' (P28) serves as a condition of success for collaborative and effective research that qualifies for prioritization.

Discussion
This qualitative interview study investigated stakeholders´ experiences and viewpoints regarding informed consent and trial prioritization for human subject research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Informed consent
For the topic of informed consent the interviewees mentioned significant practical limitations that can negatively impact on the conditions for a valid consent.The competence to make autonomous decisions and the understanding of the relevant information can be impacted by practical limitations such as "time pressure" or "isolation conditions".Further challenges such as competitive recruitment might "overburden patients" and thus impact on competence and understanding.The often high uncertainty about expected benefits and harms of investigated treatments (over 99% of investigated COVID-19 treatments failed [11]) also impact on the "relevant information" condition for a valid consent.The more the validity conditions for informed consent are challenged the less does the consent procedure serves its role of patient protection.Our qualitative study cannot provide an answer to the question of how often obtained consent in COVID-19 studies was invalid.The plausibility of having strongly limited conditions for valid consent during a pandemic urgency situation, however, signals the need to define and implement measures that either facilitate better validity conditions or compensate for the decreased protective function of informed consent.We come back to these compensating measures below.
The challenges around informed consent cannot only affect the protection of trial participants but can also limit the effective and efficient conduct of clinical research and thus affect the society at large.Relevant factors potentially limiting clinical research are recruitment challenges (via delay or failure of studies), biased sampling of less severely affected patients (that have higher chances to give consent in a timely fashion).Here again, our qualitative and thus explorative study can only raise awareness about these challenges but we cannot specify how often specific trials were strongly delayed or failed due to consent challenges.Data on recruitment failures in Germany point to relatively low recruitment rates and a lot of early stopping of trials [5].The challenges of informed consent could be one contributing determinant beside others.To prepare for future pandemics with maybe even more challenging conditions for valid informed consent procedures further ethical, legal and social discussions including all relevant stakeholder groups should address the question of what modification of consent procedures are acceptable in pandemic emergency situations that strongly require clinical research especially with severely affected patients that are not able to give consent.
Our interview results suggest that secondary use of patient data under a broad consent model or even an opt-out model might resolve some of the above mentioned challenges.An exemplary discussion for Low and Middle Income Countries (LMIC) can be found at Singh et al. (2021), who evaluate how conducting biobank research under a waiver of informed consent during public health emergencies is ethically permissible [12].However, while secondary use of health data can create additional information, it cannot replace clinical trials.
In contrast to Germany, in other countries alternative consent strategies were considered legitimate under the special circumstances of the pandemic.Repeatedly, interviewees referred to the knowledge gained rapidly by the Recovery Study conducted in the UK [10].To be emphasized is the IC agreement, already anchored in the study protocol, which made deferred consent solutions possible by a clinician in consultation with the research ethics committees.Patients who lack capacity to consent due to severe disease (e.g.need ventilation), and for whom a legally designated representative is not available, randomization and consequent treatment will proceed with consent provided by a clinician independent of the clinician seeking to enroll the patient who will act as the legally designated representative.Consent will then be obtained from the patient in case of recovery or the patient's personal legally designated representative at the earliest opportunity [10].

Prioritization aspects
When reflecting the urgent need to generate knowledge and at the same time the need to select the most promising studies and avoid wasteful redundancies and inefficiencies in clinical trials, interviewees emphasized the potential value of well-informed prioritization decisions.The common task would be to decide which (often collaborative) trials to launch and to assure that they are robust and create patient-oriented output.A successful, frequently cited example is the already mentioned centrally planned multicenter RECOVERY study [10].Organized and planned by Oxford University, it was initiated with the National Health System.It recruited 10,000 patients within two months and ultimately produced substantial evidence for the treatment of COVID-19 (ibid.)[13].
With regard to the German context, interviewees saw the German Network University Medicine [14] which was founded during the pandemic to foster cooperation between UMCs, as a fruitful starting point.The network aims to bring together and evaluate action plans, diagnostic and treatment strategies from as many German university hospitals as possible.This bundling of competencies and resources is intended to create structures and processes in the hospitals that ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients.In addition, interviewees discussed that non-university institutions and networks established through the Robert Koch Institute, for example, should also be considered as collaboration partners.Within all these institutions, databases and registers have been created in preparation for evidence synthesis in future pandemics, which are helpful for potential decision-making (e.g.CEOsys [15], NAPKON [16], CODEX [17] [18], STAKOB [19]).
A differentiated approach for possible prioritization criteria was also developed by Meyer et al. [8] who have drafted guidance for research institutions on how ethical consolidation and prioritization of COVID-19 clinical trials might proceed in a three-stage assessment.It first considers whether a study meets the criteria of social value, scientific validity, feasibility, and collaboration.Second, if all threshold criteria are met, the institutional capacity to conduct a study should be examined and assessed.Third, study-specific prioritization criteria should be evaluated, concerning the safety and effectiveness of interventions, the robustness of designs as well as institutional resource utilization, expertise and experiences in clinical practice.Meyer at al. suggest further to check several diversity criteria, which query e.g., several patient life stage and risk factors, a wide range of disease stages, and ensure inclusions from different geographic and sociodemographic regions.For implementing these criteria, "COVID-19 research prioritization process should occur prior to IRB , grants office, and other institutional reviews to avoid wasting those important resources" [8].In addition, communication of potential prioritization decisions as well emergency risk communication should be considered [20].
Because prioritization of specific studies can not only be helpful for scientists by improving quality but also protect patients by increasing the chance that primarily robust and clinically highly relevant studies are initiated.Prioritization and collaboration efforts to improve the scientific justification of trials conducted in the pandemic context would this function as an important compensation for the above mentioned challenges with the informed consent procedure.

Limitations of the study
Our study has the following limitations.Firstly, the content focus on informed consent and study prioritization was set by us.As mentioned in the introduction, this was justified by literature-based preliminary work and expert consultation.Secondly, while we were able to include diverse perspectives from trialists, health care professionals, regulatory bodies we were not able to identify patient representatives that could comment more generally on experiences with informed consent and study prioritization in the pandemic context.We believe that a quantitative survey of trial participants and/or their legal representatives would be an important follow-up work on our explorative qualitative expert interviews.

Conclusion
This interview study identified a broad spectrum of challenges and mitigation strategies for informed consent and study prioritization in a pandemic setting.Mitigation strategies partly share common ground.Procedures for study prioritization, for example, seem to be a core mitigation strategy in dealing with informed consent challenges.Especially in a research environment with particularly high uncertainty regarding potential treatment effects and further limitations for valid informed consent should the selection of clinical trials be very well justified from a scientific and practical relevance viewpoint.The results of the interview study shall inform the development of practice-oriented guidance for informed consent and trial prioritization as a component of pandemic preparedness.

Funding Statement
The project received funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01KI20123).The funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, or in writing the manuscript.In principle, everyone expressed their interests in some way, and in the end there was a lack of clarity: "How do you do it when everyone announces their interests?In the end, will it be the case that certain groups, who perhaps have some form of -let me put it this way -influence, then perhaps implement their study interests, or how does that work?And in the case of such a pandemic, it would indeed have been helpful if certain therapies or studies or even diagnostic studies had been seen as a priority.(Interview 5)

Tables/Figures
We still have an insane number of clinical studies and now we have the situation again: At the moment, none of the centers is recruiting very well, because there are .
hardly any more patients.We must not forget that if the protocols are complicated, the inclusion and exclusion criteria will not work.(Interview 9, item 34) Prioritization could improve quality of studies

P4
The quality of the protocols must improve.

P6
We are not competing with university hospital city against university hospital city, so where we have two university locations here, for example, or in university hospital city against Berlin, but in the end we are competing in a large international network.And of course it will not be the case that all 16 universities here have the same experts in the field of infectious diseases, especially since this is still a very small subject.But the few that are there have to pull together […] the relevant stakeholders and can somehow moderate and manage them well, so that we at least speak with one voice to the public?(Interview

Table 1 :
Demographic data of interview participants

Table 2 :
Qualitative spectrum of topics regarding the informed consent for or prioritization of clinical studies on Covid-19.

Table S4 Part "Informed Consent": Qualitative spectrum of topics with relevance for the informed consent for clinical studies during the Covid-19 pandemic
15)terview 7, item 2) Even if you now say: "I only take in patients who initially come to a normal ward and are still so healthy, in quotation marks, that they can be easily educated," there are still a few meantime, and then he can't withdraw his consent."Thestateagencysays, or a person in the state agency says, "The moment the patient goes into the ICU, the patient has to be excluded from the study."Although, of course, you could just as easily say, "Well, he consented, he wants to stay in the study, even though he can't comment on it now.. " Although, of course, you could just as easily say, "Well, he consented, he wants to stay in the study, even though he can't comment on it now."Butbecause he can no longer withdraw, you have to exclude him.(Interview 1, item15).

Qualitative spectrum of topics with relevance for the prioritization of clinical studies during the Covid-19 pandemic
.
It got the big money.They got the big money and then you have to make sure that you get a little bit of clinic X, right?And [I] find it disastrous that the money went to virologists and the virologist primarily distributed it to other virologists.Sothe clinicians, they are completely ... if we didn't have access via pharma to study credit, we wouldn't have done any research at Covid as clinicians, but would have degenerated as bio-material suppliers for virologists.And then, of course, you're super interested if you know you're going to deliver and slave away all day and never get considered anyway.And I thought it was a pity that all the 'public grants' are controlled by clinic X, right?[...] No, that is due to the pandemic.Mr. X gets the whole thing and he distributes it.And for innovative clinical ideas you don't get any money from public funding, you have to approach the pharmaceutical industry, right?(Interview 4, item 18-20) Sunstainable funding P24 I think that a lot of the disruption came from the fact that, first of all, everyone wanted to contribute something to this global issue, but also that we nowadays finance a large part of our scientific work only through short-term third-party funding, right?So now, I have 31 female collaborators with my research group and not one of them is tenured, including myself.So, we all 32 work on temporary contracts and all on competitively acquired third-party funds.(Interview 15, item 6) so if we also want to participate scientifically here and above all we simply realized that something is now coming our way and we actually want to learn immediately while 'doing'.So the goal is that we don't say like we usually do, we're going . to collect some data now and evaluate that in a year and have our study protocol, our grant program or something, but actually more or less every week we actually want to prefer to evaluate what we learned from the last week because it's just so new, right, and coming so fast.(Interview 15, item 4) Intervention study versus just data summary.And that's where I just come first to the question of having and using data from patients for later and also biomaterials.And I have to say, for this part my impression at Covid-19 was that the interest for the general public is so high that it would be helpful to define what is generally possible for the general public at a high level and does not require consent.(Interview 11, item 4) Regulation on data use and access P26 Who has data sovereignty?Do I give away my data?Am I still considered enough there?So in an instant, everybody gets this feeling, "I'm giving something away.Am I possibly giving away my rights there?"And that somehow seems to be more possible in this NHS [National Health Service; Authority in UK], that the individual NHS doctor in the system -even if it's not China nowsomehow functions better and immediately has the feeling that something is being taken away from him.(Interview 11, item 20) So if I could wish for something, and I want to turn it around, then it would be that the .university policy but also the social policy recognizes that clinical studies for highquality requirements need their own scientific basis, the centers must be provided accordingly, especially in the field of infectious diseases or if you look at it more abstractly, in all German centers for health research.(Interview 9, pos.58) It's interesting to see who is conducting clinical studies now, and who is partially discontinuing them, so we once initiated studies here that never went into recruitment, which is of course simply a cost factor for everyone involved.(Interview 9, item 38) Fair play among scientists P28 So if there is a collaborative body and if you try as an institution to make the research as efficient as possible in terms of the outcome, but at the same time in terms of the study participants to keep it as ethical as possible and also little resilient, then in the end you also have to look that there is also a fair play among the scientists.(Interview 8, item 4) P22 Far from ethics, it is obvious that the funding system in Germany is in no way prepared for a pandemic.In March, 150 million euros were thrown into the middle and people said, "Well, now we have to understand this