https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9507-8331
![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project described in this publication was supported by the University of Rochester CTSA award number 3 UL1 TR002001 – 08S1 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Doernberg and Truog distinguish between “human subjects research” and “scientific knowledge,” but do not clearly articulate the distinct ends of these spheres, instead simply claiming that “the norms of clinical research govern the relationship between investigators and human subjects” and “scientific norms relate to the integrity of the scientific process.” On our view, when physicians act in either sphere they are oriented towards the production of generalizable knowledge about human health and/or healthcare—and almost all cases of conflict that physicians’ encounter between the sphere of clinical care and either “human subject research” or “scientific knowledge” (e.g. equipoise, research recruitment, biobanking, expanded access, etc.) are cases best understood as driven by a tension between caring for the patient in front of you and the goal of producing socially useful knowledge.