Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (4):675-691 (2010)

Achieving a good clinical trial design increases the likelihood that a trial will take place as planned, including that data will be obtained from a sufficient number of participants, and the total number of participants will be the minimal required to gain the knowledge sought. A good trial design also increases the likelihood that the knowledge sought by the experiment will be forthcoming. Achieving such a design is more than good sense—it is ethically required in experiments when participants are at risk of harm. This paper argues that doing a power analysis effectively contributes to ensuring that a trial design is good. The ethical importance of good trial design has long been recognized for trials in which there is risk of serious harm to participants. However, whether the quality of a trial design, when the risk to participants is only minimal, is an ethical issue is rarely discussed. This paper argues that even in cases when the risk is minimal, the quality of the trial design is an ethical issue, and that this is reflected in the emphasis the Belmont Report places on the importance of the benefit of knowledge gained by society. The paper also argues that good trial design is required for true informed consent
Keywords Statistical power  Belmont Report  RCR  Ethical frameworks  Ethical thinking  Ethical reasoning  Research oversight  Research compliance  Ethics of clinical trials
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-010-9244-0
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 56,081
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

When Experiments Go Wrong: The US Perspective.A. M. Capron - 2004 - Journal of Clinical Ethics 15 (1):22.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Research Misconception.Maurie Markman - 2004 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18 (2):241-252.
Valuing Risk: The Ethical Review of Clinical Trial Safety.Jonathan Kimmelman - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (4):369-393.
Evaluating the Therapeutic Misconception.Franklin G. Miller & Steven Joffe - 2006 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (4):353-366.


Added to PP index

Total views
68 ( #145,227 of 2,404,011 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #550,679 of 2,404,011 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes