|Abstract||It is widely agreed that foreign sponsors of research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are morally required to ensure that their research benefits the broader host community. There is no agreement, however, about how much benefit or what type of benefit research sponsors must provide, nor is there agreement about what group of people is entitled to benefit. To settle these questions, it is necessary to examine why research sponsors have an obligation to benefit the broader host community, not only their subjects. Justifying this claim is not straightforward. There are three justifications for an obligation to benefit host communities that each apply to some research, but not to all. Each requires a different amount of benefit, and each requires benefit to be directed toward a different group. If research involves significant net risk to LMIC subjects, research must provide adequate benefit to people in LMICs to avoid an unjustified appeal to subjects’ altruism. If research places significant burdens on public resources, research must provide fair compensation to the community whose public resources are burdened. If research is for profit, research sponsors must contribute adequately to the upkeep of public goods from which they benefit in order to avoid the wrong of free-riding, even if their use of these public goods is not burdensome|
|Keywords||community international research fair benefits exploitation reasonable availability|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gillian Nycum & Lynette Reid (2007). The Harm-Benefit Tradeoff in "Bad Deal" Trials. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (4):321-350.
Janet Malek (2007). Understanding Risks and Benefits in Research on Reproductive Genetic Technologies. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):339 – 358.
Angela Ballantyne (2008). Benefits to Research Subjects in International Trials: Do They Reduce Exploitation or Increase Undue Inducement? Developing World Bioethics 8 (3):178-191.
Annette Rid & David Wendler (2011). A Framework for Risk-Benefit Evaluations in Biomedical Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (2):141-179.
Bernice S. Elger (2008). Research Involving Prisoners: Consensus and Controversies in International and European Regulations. Bioethics 22 (4):224–238.
Eric Chwang (2010). Against Risk-Benefit Review of Prisoner Research. Bioethics 24 (1):14-22.
Ana S. Iltis (2011). Justice, Fairness, and Membership in a Class: Conceptual Confusions and Moral Puzzles in the Regulation of Human Subjects Research. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (3):488-501.
David Wendler (2012). A New Justification for Pediatric Research Without the Potential for Clinical Benefit. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (1):23 - 31.
Christian Simon & Maghboeba Mosavel (2010). Exploratory Health Disparities Research: The Need to Provide a Tangible Benefit to Vulnerable Respondents. Ethics and Behavior 20 (1):1-9.
Alex Rajczi (2004). Making Risk-Benefit Assessments of Medical Research Protocols. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (2):338-348.
R. C. Hughes (2012). Individual Risk and Community Benefit in International Research. Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (10):626-629.
Melanie R. Roberts (2011). Realizing Societal Benefit From Academic Research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion. Social Epistemology 23 (3):199-219.
Doris Schroeder & Eugenijus Gefenas (2011). Realizing Benefit Sharing – the Case of Post-Study Obligations. Bioethics 26 (6):305-314.
Angela Ballantyne (2008). 'Fair Benefits' Accounts of Exploitation Require a Normative Principle of Fairness: Response to Gbadegesin and Wendler, and Emanuel Et Al. Bioethics 22 (4):239–244.
Added to index2012-10-02
Total downloads12 ( #101,098 of 722,765 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,765 )
How can I increase my downloads?