About

Leslie Meltzer Henry, JD, PhD, is a faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and a law professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law. Her teaching and scholarship focus on issues in constitutional law, bioethics, public health law and policy, reproductive justice, and research ethics. She is an associate editor of the Oxford Handbook for Public Health Ethics and a contributor to the Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Her scholarship has been published in peer-reviewed medical journals and leading law reviews, and she has guest-edited symposia for prominent journals. Professor Henry provides expert commentary for federal and local agencies, organizations, and the media. She has served as a bioethics consultant to the Department of Defense and has presented before panels of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health Bioethics Advisory Committee. She has also provided written commentary for the Mid-Atlantic Ethics Committee Network and has been quoted in various media outlets. Her research includes addressing the ethical and legal challenges of conducting research with pregnant women during public health emergencies and developing ethically and legally acceptable strategies for HIV research during pregnancy. Her prior experience includes a post-doctoral fellowship in bioethics and health policy, clerking for a federal judge, and founding the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics.

Research topics

• Medicine
• Sociology
• Social Science
• Pathology
• Intensive care medicine
• Medical education
• Virology
• Family medicine
• Psychology
• Biology

Selected publications

• Ethical research when abortion access is legally restricted

  UNC Libraries · 2025-03-26

  articleOpen access

  The legal landscape surrounding abortion in the United States has shifted dramatically since the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated a nationwide right to abortion (1) In the year since, roughly half of US states have expanded abortion restrictions. Some consequences of heightened restrictions—including increased maternal morbidity and mortality and deepening socioeconomic and racial inequities—have quickly come into view. However, little attention has focused on the ethical, legal, and practical implications that such restrictions have for research involving people who could become pregnant during research and research staff. Notably, limited access to abortion can pose risks to clinical research participants and potentially compromise the scientific and social value of some research. As a result, assessments of potential research risks and benefits may be altered. We outline points for various stakeholders [such as sponsors, investigators, research sites, and institutional review boards (IRBs)] to consider in addressing these issues.

  PublisherDOI

• Impact of Disclosing to Patients the Use of Antiretroviral Resistance Testing Results for Molecular HIV Surveillance: A Randomized Experiment in 2 National Surveys

  JMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2025-04-11 · 5 citations

  articleOpen access

  Background: Molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) can be used to help identify and respond to emerging clusters of rapidly spreading HIV transmissions, a practice known as cluster detection and response (CDR). In the United States, MHS relies on HIV gene sequences obtained from routine clinical antiretroviral resistance testing (ARVRT). By law, ARVRT results are reported to public health agencies for MHS and individuals are not asked for their specific consent to do so. This practice has raised ethical concerns, including the lack of consent for, and transparency surrounding, public health uses of these clinical data. Such concerns have spurred debate and could have a chilling effect on the willingness of people living with HIV to agree to ARVRT when recommended clinically and jeopardize the utility of MHS-informed HIV prevention efforts. In response to the lack of routine disclosure of use of ARVRT results for MHS, in 2022, the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) issued a resolution calling on the US Centers for Disease Control to "require that providers explain MHS/CDR and the laboratory test results that are collected and used in these surveillance activities to their patients." Objective: This study aimed to examine the effect of clinician disclosure of the public health uses of ARVRT results for MHS versus clinician nondisclosure on patient willingness to undergo recommended ARVRT. Methods: We conducted a randomized survey experiment examining the effect of clinician disclosure of the public health uses of ARVRT results for MHS versus clinician nondisclosure (the current standard of care) and subsequent discovery of such uses through a "trusted media source" on patient willingness to undergo recommended ARVRT. Study participants were respondents to 1 of 2 national web-based surveys conducted annually in the United States: the American Men's Internet Survey (AMIS) and the Transgender Women's Internet Survey and Testing (TWIST). Results: Overall, 4348 AMIS participants (n=2151 disclosure; n=2197 nondisclosure) and 3314 TWIST participants (n=1670 disclosure; n=1644 nondisclosure) completed survey items regarding the randomly assigned vignettes. The majority were willing to undergo ARVRT regardless of which vignette they saw (1670/2151, 82.7% [AMIS] and 1326/1670, 80.8% [TWIST] in the disclosure group; and 1399/2197, 68% [AMIS] and 1101/1674, 68.45% [TWIST] in the nondisclosure group) after later learning about public health uses of ARVRT results. Conclusions: The majority of respondents expressed willingness to undergo ARVRT even with disclosure of public health uses of these data, but willingness markedly decreased when learning about these uses after the fact, highlighting the importance of transparency in MHS programs. Accordingly, in line with the ethical principle of respect for autonomy and the likelihood that the potential public health benefits of MHS programs will not be compromised, consideration should be given to encouraging clinicians to disclose public health uses of ARVRT at the time ARVRT is recommended.

  PublisherDOI

• Opportunities to Advance Maternal Immunization Research

  The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal · 2025-02-01

  reviewSenior authorCorresponding

  In the last decade, there has been a notable surge in efforts to address longstanding obstacles to the conduct of clinical trials during pregnancy. This brief report draws attention to recent initiatives in vaccine and pregnancy-related research and highlights opportunities for researchers and clinicians to advance maternal immunization research, benefiting the health of pregnant women, fetuses and neonates.

  PublisherDOI

• Blurring Boundaries: A Proposed Research Agenda for Ethical, Legal, Social, and Historical Studies at the Intersection of Infectious and Genetic Disease.

  UNC Libraries · 2024-10-31

  articleOpen access

  Contemporary understanding of the mechanisms of disease increasingly points to examples of "genetic diseases" with an infectious component and of "infectious diseases" with a genetic component. Such blurred boundaries generate ethical, legal, and social issues and highlight historical contexts that must be examined when incorporating host genomic information into the prevention, outbreak control, and treatment of infectious diseases.

  PublisherDOI

• Blurring Boundaries: A Proposed Research Agenda for Ethical, Legal, Social, and Historical Studies at the Intersection of Infectious and Genetic Disease

  The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics · 2024-01-01

  articleOpen access

  Contemporary understanding of the mechanisms of disease increasingly points to examples of "genetic diseases" with an infectious component and of "infectious diseases" with a genetic component. Such blurred boundaries generate ethical, legal, and social issues and highlight historical contexts that must be examined when incorporating host genomic information into the prevention, outbreak control, and treatment of infectious diseases.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Ethical research when abortion access is legally restricted

  Science · 2023-06-22 · 14 citations

  articleOpen access

  Risks and benefits of some clinical research may be altered.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Brief Report: Challenges in Obtaining the Informed Perspectives of Stakeholders Regarding HIV Molecular Epidemiology

  JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes · 2023-02-20 · 18 citations

  articleOpen access

  BACKGROUND: HIV molecular epidemiology (HIV-ME) is now being used in a variety of ways, including molecular HIV surveillance to help identify and respond to emerging HIV transmission clusters as specified in the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. initiative. However, HIV-ME in general, and its use for cluster detection and response, in particular, raises significant ethical and social concerns, which have spurred vigorous debates. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of information regarding how these potential benefits and concerns are perceived among people living with HIV and people without HIV at an increased risk. SETTING: Virtual engagement with US participants. METHODS: We rigorously developed a brief informational video about HIV-ME and conducted a series of in-depth interviews with people living with HIV and people without HIV at an increased risk. RESULTS: Through extensive stakeholder engagement during the video development process and subsequent in-depth interviews (N = 24), several preliminary findings surfaced. In contrast to the high level of concern raised by some critics of HIV-ME, our data appear to show broad support for it. In addition, we observed conflation of perspectives about HIV-ME with concerns about HIV public health surveillance more generally. CONCLUSION: Our experiences reveal substantial communication challenges related to the nature of HIV-ME that need to be overcome to ensure that it is properly understood, which is necessary for meaningfully engaging stakeholders in discussions about its use. Moreover, ongoing, responsive, engagement efforts are critical. Additional systematic data are needed to help inform policy making and practice regarding HIV-ME.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Scientific, ethical, and legal considerations for the inclusion of pregnant people in clinical trials

  American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2022-08-04 · 74 citations

  articleOpen access
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• The Fight Over the Virginia Redistricting Commission

  2021-01-01

  articleSenior author
  Publisher

• Closing the Gap

  Oxford University Press eBooks · 2020-12-15 · 1 citations

  book-chapterSenior author

  Abstract Drawing on the ethical principles of the Belmont Report, this chapter critically examines the legacy and current policies and practices in the United States related to the inclusion of women in clinical research. Historically, protectionist policies and practices excluded women from research participation, justified by, for example, reliance on the male norm, male bias, and fears of legal liability resulting from tragic cases of fetal harm. Recognition of the ensuing harms to women’s health from exclusion and underrepresentation in research led to significant policy changes in the 1990s encouraging women’s participation in research. Although the knowledge gap in women’s health is narrowing, significant challenges remain, including the need to develop robust approaches to defining sex and gender, identifying and analyzing sex and gender differences, and acknowledging and addressing intersectionality and women’s health needs across their life spans.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Anna C. Mastroianni

  Johns Hopkins University

  43 shared

• Ruth Faden

  Johns Hopkins University

  33 shared

• Margaret Olivia Little

  27 shared

• R. Jean Cadigan

  26 shared

• Carleigh Krubiner

  Wellcome Trust

  26 shared

• Sappho Z. Gilbert

  Harvard Global Health Institute

  26 shared

• Kristen Sullivan

  26 shared

• Emily Namey

  Family Health International 360

  26 shared

Education

• Ph.D., Religious Studies: Medical Ethics

  University of Virginia

  2016

• J.D.

  Yale University Yale Law School

  2002

• M.Sc., Economic and Social History: History of Medicine

  University of Oxford

  1998

• B.A., History and Medical Ethics

  University of Virginia

  1997