The therapeutic misconception,beneficence, and respect

In order to provide benefits to society, human medical trials must place subjects at risk of harm. This activity is thought to be justified in part by the consent of the subjects involved. But, studies have shown that most such consents are based on a therapeutic misconception (TM); the false belief of subjects that their researchers will act as their personal physicians (seeking their benefit and protecting them from harm), rather than placing them at risk of harm for the good of others. Toleration by researchers of the TM in their subjects is a form of "informational manipulation" that renders consent procedures disrespectful to subject autonomy. Consent obtained from subjects who labor under a TM is neither voluntary nor informed; as long as they have not been disabused of the TM, the action they take in enrolling in a trial is not the one they intend nor is it autonomously chosen. Changes in consent procedures should be adopted to ensure that all subjects are aware inter alia that (a) the health interests of future patients (as well as the researchers' and their sponsors' financial interests) may be more important to researchers than the interest of a subject in his or her health, and (b) normal subjects neither understand nor believe this when told. Close attention to the response of prospective subjects to this information should allow for the exclusion of all but the truly altruistic. However, the result of conscientious implementation of such policies would likely be that human medical research could no longer be conducted on more than a minimal level.     

Disclosing Conflicts of Interest to Research Subjects: An Ethical and Legal Analysis

In this article, I examine the ethical and legal issues related to disclosure of conflicts of interest to research subjects, and discuss some empirical studies related to the topic. I argue that researchers have an ethical obligation to disclose conflicts of interest to research subjects, provided that they take steps to help subjects understand information about conflicts of interest and how to interpret it. Researchers also may have a legal duty to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects, depending on the facts of the case and the court's interpretation of the law. To reinforce and clarify the legal obligation to disclose conflicts of interest, the federal regulations should be amended to include disclosure of conflicts of interest as one of the informed consent requirements. Institutional review boards play a key role in helping researchers to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects in an appropriate manner. Institutional review boards should approve the disclosure language in informed consent documents, and they should require researchers to disclose financial interests to research subjects, if they have any, as a condition of approval.     

Physician duties in the conduct of human subject research

In this article, I examine a skeptical argument against the possibility of ethically justifying risky human subject research (rHSR). That argument asserts that such research is unethical because it holds the possibility of wronging subjects who are harmed and whose consent to participate was less than fully voluntary. I conclude that the skeptical argument is not in the end sufficient to undermine the ethical foundation of rHSR because it fails to take account of the special positive duty researchers owe their clients and future patients. Although the skeptical argument is defeated, it exacts certain novel concessions from the pro‐research position. Of particular importance are the admissions (a) that researchers presumptively owe a fiduciary duty to research subjects, (b) that because the most important risks of rHSR are unknown and unquantifiable that duty must be explicitly waived by all subjects before they participate in any protocol, and (c) that such waivers must be made by individuals who satisfy objective criteria of competence for giving fully voluntary consent. The implementation of procedures responsive to these concerns might have a dampening effect on the conduct of research. However, the article concludes with a consideration of the likely benefits to researchers and society of a more cautious ethical regime.     

Disclosing conflicts of interest to research subjects: an ethical and legal analysis

In this article, I examine the ethical and legal issues related to disclosure of conflicts of interest to research subjects, and discuss some empirical studies related to the topic. I argue that researchers have an ethical obligation to disclose conflicts of interest to research subjects, provided that they take steps to help subjects understand information about conflicts of interest and how to interpret it. Researchers also may have a legal duty to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects, depending on the facts of the case and the court's interpretation of the law. To reinforce and clarify the legal obligation to disclose conflicts of interest, the federal regulations should be amended to include disclosure of conflicts of interest as one of the informed consent requirements. Institutional review boards play a key role in helping researchers to disclose conflicts of interest to subjects in an appropriate manner. Institutional review boards should approve the disclosure language in informed consent documents, and they should require researchers to disclose financial interests to research subjects, if they have any, as a condition of approval.     

Physician duties in the conduct of human subject research

In this article, I examine a skeptical argument against the possibility of ethically justifying risky human subject research (rHSR). That argument asserts that such research is unethical because it holds the possibility of wronging subjects who are harmed and whose consent to participate was less than fully voluntary. I conclude that the skeptical argument is not in the end sufficient to undermine the ethical foundation of rHSR because it fails to take account of the special positive duty researchers owe their clients and future patients. Although the skeptical argument is defeated, it exacts certain novel concessions from the pro-research position. Of particular importance are the admissions (a) that researchers presumptively owe a fiduciary duty to research subjects, (b) that because the most important risks of rHSR are unknown and unquantifiable that duty must be explicitly waived by all subjects before they participate in any protocol, and (c) that such waivers must be made by individuals who satisfy objective criteria of competence for giving fully voluntary consent. The implementation of procedures responsive to these concerns might have a dampening effect on the conduct of research. However, the article concludes with a consideration of the likely benefits to researchers and society of a more cautious ethical regime.     

What a Tangled Web We Weave: Ethical and Legal Implications of Deception in Recruitment

Deception in human subject research is neither uncommon nor prohibited. The use of deception in the recruitment phase of clinical research has received relatively little attention. Given that informed consent is foundational to human subject research, the practice of misrepresenting the study purpose in clinical research would seem to contradict one of the fundamental tenets of ethical human subjects research. Using the example of prodromal psychosis, this article the ethical and legal implications of deception in recruitment and the sufficiency of current guidance on the practice when the study involves a stigmatizing condition, the collection of genetic samples, or both. I conclude that when these two elements are present, deception should only be used when absolutely necessary and, if used, researchers should be required to debrief participants before the collection of genetic samples and give particular attention to minimizing risks of privacy breaches.     

What a tangled web we weave: ethical and legal implications of deception in recruitment

Deception in human subject research is neither uncommon nor prohibited. The use of deception in the recruitment phase of clinical research has received relatively little attention. Given that informed consent is foundational to human subject research, the practice of misrepresenting the study purpose in clinical research would seem to contradict one of the fundamental tenets of ethical human subjects research. Using the example of prodromal psychosis, this article the ethical and legal implications of deception in recruitment and the sufficiency of current guidance on the practice when the study involves a stigmatizing condition, the collection of genetic samples, or both. I conclude that when these two elements are present, deception should only be used when absolutely necessary and, if used, researchers should be required to debrief participants before the collection of genetic samples and give particular attention to minimizing risks of privacy breaches.     

Resolving Beecher's Paradox: Getting beyond IRB reform

Protection of persons participating as research subjects is an essential element of ethical research conduct. There is growing concern that the existing system of institutional review boards (IRBs) and informed consent may not be adequate and is in need of reform. When science and medicine are “merged”; in clinical research, confusion of roles and conflicts of interests arise in relationships between patient‐subjects and physician‐investigators. IRBs have always had a primary role in protection of research participants. Their efforts to protect research subjects may make it more difficult for investigators to conduct research. This tension has lead to the development of an adversarial relationship between IRBs and investigators. Investigators and IRBs are also subject to external pressures that could impact efforts to protect research subjects. Efforts are underway to address these concerns. IRB reform, while needed, is not likely to be sufficient. Adoption of a new paradigm in which IRBs, investigators and research sponsors collectively accept protection of research subjects as their primary and shared responsibility may provide a more effective and efficient model that will be better able to deal with difficult ethical and social issues in clinical research.     

Ethics of research design

Discussions of ethical issues in research involving human subjects most usually provoke concerns about valid informed consent procedures. However, considering the recognized limitations of informed consent, arguably the way a study is designed is a more consequential concern for subject well‐being. This paper summarizes ethical issues in the design of clinical research, with reference to historic and current guidelines. Special attention is given to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and psychiatric research.     

Self-experimentation

Except in certain cases of unusual risk, self-experimentation should not be encouraged. It is usually scientifically inadequate for lack of proper controls and sufficient subjects to generate meaningful results. It is also inadequate as an ethical test because even if lay persons are also enrolled, self-experimentation is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish that they may participate. It is not necessary to establish that lay persons may participate because institutional ethics review and informed consent are better ways to determine this. It is not sufficient because the investigator may be more risk accepting or not medically typical. Moreover, because scientific research is now done in teams, self-experimentation may involve undue influence when junior investigators participate as research subjects.     

Scientific evidence and the judicial system

Research involving the vulnerable sick raises difficult challenges for investigators and Institutional Review Boards. Exactly who among the ill counts as vulnerable is a matter of judgement, and involves consideration of susceptibility to harm and capacity to provide free and informed consent. A balanced approach is required when protections are considered, and the benefits as well as the risks of research participation must be carefully weighed. A variety of protections for the vulnerable sick in research are available, including enrolling subjects in a study only with a strong justification, ensuring that consent is free and comprehending, and setting limits on the risk to which they may be asked to endure. Discussion of three contemporary controversies, placebo‐controlled trials in the psychiatric setting, phase I clinical trials and oncology patients, and emergency room research involving patients incapable of giving consent, highlights the little recognized prominence of risk‐benefit issues in the clinical studies in the vulnerable sick.     

The protection of unrepresented patients in emergency care research

In emergency care research, it may be the case that neither informed consent nor surrogate consent is possible. In order to nonetheless allow for such research, codes and regulations of research ethics have increasingly incorporated provisions regarding this specific situation. The protection that those provisions offer need to be better understood. This article addresses in what ways they protect individuals, and especially the extent to which the suggested protection compensates for the loss of surrogate consent. The Declaration of Helsinki, the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and the EU Clinical Trials Regulation serve as the main illustrations.     

Research ethics and clinical trials: Fostering collaboration with research participants

Accountability in research is a concept that applies to researchers and study participants alike. Human subjects play an active part in the success or failure of a clinical trial by virtue of their understanding of a study's goals expectations of personal gain, and adherence to study design. Trials must be designed to address patient concerns, offer an improved consent process, and move beyond our narrow conception of “patient rights.”; Problems with protocol adherence may be reduced by conceptualizing clinical research as an endeavor with mutual accountability within a relational ethic.     

Ethical Beliefs of Social Work Researchers

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the beliefs of social work researchers about ethical practices. Surveys were mailed to a random sample of 240 members of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) to elicit their views about ethical practices in social work research. Responses from 160 members (67% response rate) yielded information regarding the appropriateness of dual relationships, authorship practices, informed consent procedures, and other conduct in social work research. Age, gender, educational level, years of social work research experience, and current teaching of social work research were related to respondents' ethical views about practices with students and sexual relationships with research subjects. The need for additional resources on ethics in social work research is highlighted.     

Guinea Pigs on the payroll: The ethics of paying research subjects

Regulatory bodies and scholars have traditionally conceptualized biomedical research on healthy subjects in the same way as research on patients. Guidelines and regulations have portrayed payment to a healthy subject as a potential constraint, or “undue influence,”; on the subject's free consent. In this essay we suggest an alternative way of conceptualizing research on healthy subjects, which sees the basic issue not as one of undue influence but as one of justice. Healthy subjects generally enroll in research protocols not for humanitarian reasons but for the money they will receive. Many of these protocols are conducted by profit‐driven corporations. Yet current guidelines and regulations prohibit subjects from negotiating for fair payment for the risks, discomforts and inconveniences they undergo, and IRBs are not staffed adequately to monitor the subject's safety. We propose to remedy the situation by regulating payment to healthy subjects as a labor relation.     

Dissemination to research subjects: operationalizing investigator accountability

Recent articles have argued from principles of bioethics for the right of research subjects to receive the results of the studies in which they have participated. We argue that accountability is a powerful tool of meso-level analysis appropriate to reasoning about answerability in research ethics, and that it captures the responsibility of researchers to disseminate study results to research subjects. We offer the following features of the research situation as relevant to the manner of dissemination to study subject, in addition to factors already proposed in the literature (risk and impact on health outcome): (a) features of the research subject in relation to identity, personal investment, disease, and community; (b) characteristics of the research study and field of inquiry in relation to certainty and significance; and (c) relationships among the research subjects and the healthcare workers involved in their care and in the research.     

Ethical guidelines for research with children: A review of current research ethics documentation in New Zealand

Abstract

Children's rights to participate in matters affecting them, including research, have gained increasing recognition over recent decades. This recognition, and the growth in research with children as participants, has given rise to greater attention from researchers to ethical issues related to child research. This article reviews the current ethics documentation in New Zealand. The findings indicate that considerable variation exists between ethical codes and guidelines in relation to research with children. The dominant focus is on attending to issues of consent and protection from harm, at the outset of the research, rather than recognition of the ongoing nature of ethical issues throughout the research process. Although the findings indicate an increase in the consideration of ethical issues, the existing documentation is inconsistent and inadequate in attending to specific child‐related issues. Suggestions are made to enhance children's participation in research and demonstrate a respect for their participation rights.     

Student Projects in Medicine: A Lesson in Science and Ethics

Regulation of biomedical research is the subject of considerable debate in the bioethics and health policy worlds. The ethics and governance of medical student projects is becoming an increasingly important topic in its own right, especially in the U.K., where there are periodic calls to change it. My main claim is that there seems to be no good reason for treating student projects differently from projects led by qualified and more experienced scientists and hence no good grounds for changing the current system of ethics review. I first suggest that the educational objectives cannot be met without laying down standards of good science, whatever they may be. Weak science is unnecessary for educational purposes, and it is, in any case, unlikely to produce good researchers in the future. Furthermore, it is curious to want to change the system of ethics review specifically for students when it is the science that is at stake, and when the science now falls largely outside the ethics remit. I further show that ethics review is nevertheless important since students carry a new potential conflict of interests that warrants independent oversight which supervisory support does not offer. This potential conflict may become more morally troublesome the greater the risks to the subjects of the research, and students may impose greater risks on their subjects (relative to professional researchers) by virtue of being inexperienced, whatever the nature of the project. Pragmatic concerns may finally be allayed by organizing the current system more efficiently at critical times of the university calendar.