Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T15:35:44.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards Progress in Resolving Dilemmas in International Research Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Solomon R. Benatar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Interest in the ethics of research on human subjects, stimulated by atrocious human experimentation during WWII and the resultant Nuremberg Code, has been sustained by examples of unethical research in many countries and by proliferation of codes and guidelines. Such interest has intensified in recent years in association with expanding international collaborative research endeavors. The ongoing controversy in international research ethics takes place at two levels. At the practical level it is about the competing concerns of those predominantly interested in doing research to advance knowledge and those who, while supporting the need for research, are more acutely aware of the potential to exploit vulnerable participants, especially in developing countries. At the level of theory the controversy pits ethical universalism against moral relativism.

In her recent review of agreements and controversies in international research ethics, Ruth Macklin has concluded that, despite seeming agreement on several issues, many different viewpoints persist. In her view it is unlikely that these will be resolved easily.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , Winter 2004 , pp. 574 - 582
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Macklin, R., “After Helsinki: Unresolved Issues in International Research,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11, no. 1 (2001): 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
In scientific cultures awareness of alternatives is highly developed and challenges to established knowledge are welcomed. In traditional cultures there is no developed awareness of alternatives to the established body of theoretical tenets and any challenge to established knowledge is a threat of chaos and invokes intense anxiety. There is also a difference in magical versus non-magical attitude to words. In non-scientific cultures words have power to influence events. Knowing the name of a being or thing is to have some degree of control over it. The scientific attitude to words is quite different and words and reality are independent variables. Horton, R., “African Traditional Thought and Western Science,” in Mosely, A. ed., African Philosophy (Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey Prentice Hall, 1995): 310–338.Google Scholar
Macklin, R., Against Relativism: Cultural Diversity and the Search for Ethical Universals in Medicine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); Beauchamp, T.L., “A Defense of the Common Morality,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13, no. 3 (2003): 259–274; Turner, L., “Zones of Consensus and Zones of Conflict: Questioning the ‘Common Morality’ Presumption in Bioethics,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13, no. 3 (2003): 193–218; DeGrazia, D., “Common Morality, Coherence, and the Principles of Biomedical Ethics,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13, no. 3 (2003): 219–230; Internet Philosophical Sources on Moral Relativism, at <http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/Relativism> (last visited Aug. 27, 2004).Google Scholar
Fox, R. and Swazy, J., “Medical Morality is Not Bioethics – Medical Ethics in China and the United States,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 27 (1985): 337–360; Lieban, R.W., “Medical Anthropology and the Comparative Study of Medical Ethics,” in Weisz, G.W., eds., Social Science Perspectives on Medical Ethics (Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer, 1990): 221–239; Christakis, N.A., “Ethics are Local: Engaging Cross-Cultural Variations in the Ethics for Clinical Research,” Social Science and Medicine 35, no. 9 (1992): 1079–91; Hoffmeister, B., “Morality and the Social Sciences,” in Weisz, G.W., eds., Social Science Perspectives on Medical Ethics (Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer, 1990): 241–260; Bowman, K., “Bioethics and Cultural Pluralism,” Humane Health Care International 13, no. 2 (1997): 31–34; Berger, J.T., “Culture and Ethnicity in Clinical Care,” Archives of Internal Medicine 158, no. 19 (1998): 2085–2090; Marshall, P.A., “Anthropology and Bioethics,” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 6, no. 1 (1992): 49–73.Google Scholar
Tangwa, G., “The Traditional African Perception of a Person: Some Implications for Bioethics,” Hastings Center Report 30, no. 5 (2000): 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tangwa, G., “International Regulations and Medical Research in Developing Countries: Double Standards or Differing Standards?” Notizie di Politeia, XVIII 67 (2002): 46–50; Loue, S., Okello, D., and Kawama, M, “Research Bioethics in the Ugandan Context,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 24 (1986): 47–53; Nairn, T., “The Use of Zairian Children in HIV Vaccine Experimentation: A Cross-cultural Study in Medical Ethics,” in Lammers, S. and Verhey, A. eds., On Moral Medicine, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998): 919–931.Google Scholar
Douglas, M., Thompson, M., and Verweij, M., “Is Time Running Out? The Case of Global Warming,” Daedalus (2003): 98–107.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., “A Pluralist Model of Culture,” Contemporary Sociology 20 (1991): 764–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugarman, J. and Sulmasy, D. P., eds., Methods in Medical Ethics (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J., Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Mackling supra note 3.Google Scholar
London, A. J., “The Ambiguity and the Exigency: Clarifying ‘Standard of Care’ Arguments in International Research,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25, no. 4 (2000): 379–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, B., “Equipoise and the Ethics of Clinical Research,” New England Journal of Medicine 217 (1987): 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, N., Worldviews: Cross-cultural Explorations of Human Beliefs, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1995).Google Scholar
Kung, H., Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic (New York: Continuum, 1993).Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M.C., Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education (Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Glover, J., Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Macklin, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A., “Introduction” in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1994); Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D., Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Garattini, S., de Andres-Trelles, F., Bertele, V., and Li Bassi, L., “Ethics of Testing Drugs with Readily Available Alternatives,” Lancet 360 (2002): 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
While the research endeavor is not directly responsible for such disparities, those involved in research are indirectly co-opted into a global political economy that has profoundly adverse implications for health. As such researchers have an obligation not to contribute to aggravating disparities, but rather to assist in narrowing them.Google Scholar
A lengthy patient information/informed consent form containing detailed information about investigations and procedures that does not provide information about poor prognosis (for examples in trials of new drugs for metastatic carcinoma where median survival is often very short and minimal prolongation of life is anticipated with new treatments) and no indication of what ‘response’ to ‘active’ drugs means in terms of prolongation of life or improvement in quality of life, can hardly be considered a universal standard. Gostin, L., “Informed Consent, Cultural Sensitivity, and respect for Persons,” JAMA 274, no 10 (1995): 844–5; Marshall, P.A., “The Relevance of Culture for Informed Consent in U.S.- Funded International Health Research: Findings and Recommendations from the Case Study on Informed Consent for Genetic Epidemiological Studies of Hypertension, Breast Cancer, and Diabetes Mellitus in Nigeria,” Commissioned Paper for National Bioethics Advisory Commission: Ethical and Policy Issues in International Research: Clinical Trials in Developing Countries Vol. II (May 2001): C1–C38; Lindegger, G. and Richter, L., “HIV Vaccine Trials: Critical Issues in Informed Consent,” South African Journal of Science 96 (2000): 313–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Moral Standards for Research in Developing Countries: From ‘Reasonable Availability’ to ‘Fair Benefits’,” Hastings Center Report 34 (2004): 17–27; Belsky, L. and Richardson, H.S., “Medical Researchers’ Ancillary Care Responsibilities,” British Medical Journal 328 (2004): 1494–6.Google Scholar
Costello, A. and Zumla, A., “Moving to Research Partnerships in Developing Countries,” British Medical Journal 321 (2000): 827–829; Lo, B. and Bayer, R., “Establishing Ethical Trials for Treatment and Prevention of AIDS in Developing Countries,” British Medical Journal 327 (2003): 337–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benatar, S.R. and Singer, P.A., “A New Look at International Research Ethics,” British Medical Journal 321 (2000): 824–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, K. and Benatar, S.R., “HIV Prevention Research and Global Inequality: Steps Towards Improved Standards of Care” Journal of Medical Ethics (2004) In press.Google Scholar
Benatar, S.R., “Some Reflections and Recommendations on Research Ethics in Developing Countries,” Social Science & Medicine 54, no. 7 (2002): 1131–41, 1147–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar