Background: Although the term “mental pain” is often the subject of expert opinions regarding claims for damages, there is still no standardized questionnaire in the German-speaking area to operationalize this concept. Therefore, the aim of this work is the development and validation of a self-assessment measurement for psychological pain after traumatic events.Methods:A first version of the questionnaire was applied on a sample of the German speaking general population. After performing an item analysis and exploratory factor analysis, the questionnaire was shortened (...) and tested on a second German speaking general population sample. Finally, the newly developed questionnaire was related to the extent of traumatization and already established instruments for the assessment of psychiatric symptom burden, which included the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 and the Post-traumatic-Stress-Scale.Results: The final version of the FESSTE consists of a total of 30 items and covers the subscales “Somatization,” “Depression,” “Intrusive Memories,” “Dissociation” and “Anxiety,” and a total scale “Mental Pain.” Based on the confirmatory factor analysis, it is assumed that the latent factor structure of the FESSTE can be best described as a bifactor-model. The final version shows a satisfactory model fit, high internal consistencies, and strong positive correlations with the BSI-18 and PTSS-10, as well as the extent of traumatic experiences.Discussion: The FESSTE enables an operationalization of mental pain comprising five subscales and one total scale. What is more, the trauma checklist attached to the FESSTE allows for the standardized assessment of potentially traumatic experiences and the corresponding extent of these experiences. The results indicate that the FESSTE is a reliable and valid self-assessment procedure for mental pain, which is suitable for use in research and in expert practice. (shrink)

An engaging, compelling and disturbing confrontation with evil...a book that will be transformative in its call for individual and collective moral responsibility." - Michael A. Grodin, M.D., Professor and Director, Project on Medicine and the Holocaust, Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies, Boston University Human Subjects Research after the Holocaust challenges you to confront the misguided medical ethics of the Third Reich personally, and to apply the lessons learned to contemporary human subjects research. While it is (...) comforting to believe that Nazi physicians, nurses, and bioscientists were either incompetent, mad, or few in number, they were, in fact, the best in the world at the time, and the vast majority participated in the government program of "applied biology." They were not coerced to behave as they did-they enthusiastically exploited widely accepted eugenic theories to design horrendous medical experiments, gas chambers and euthanasia programs, which ultimately led to mass murder in the concentration camps. Americans provided financial support for their research, modeled their medical education and research after the Germans, and continued to perform unethical human subjects research even after the Nuremberg Doctors' Trial. The German Medical Association apologized in 2012 for the behavior of its physicians during the Third Reich. By examining the medical crimes of human subjects researchers during the Third Reich, you will naturally examine your own behavior and that of your colleagues, and perhaps ask yourself "If the best physicians and bioscientists of the early 20th century could do evil while believing they were doing good, can I be certain that I will never do the same?" · Presents relatively unknown aspects of human subjects research during the Third Reich · Reveals surprising relationships between German and American human subjects research · Dispels myths about Nazi human subjects research · Compels introspection and self-examination by today's medical and research practitioners · Addresses contemporary bioethical issues affecting vulnerable populations · Brings together experts in the history of medicine during the Third Reich and thoughtful new voices. (shrink)

Subject perspectives : the missing element in research ethics -- Personal knowledge and study participation -- The everyday ethics of human research -- The hidden world of subjects : rule-breaking in clinical trials -- Participants as partners in genetic research -- Terminally ill patients and the right to try experimental drugs -- Embedded ethics in developing country research -- Research subjects as literary subjects -- How to hear subjects.

The protection of human subjects in biomedical research relies on two principal mechanisms: assessing and comparing the risks and potential benefits of proposed research, and obtaining potential subjects' informed consent. While these have been discussed extensively in the literature, no attention has been paid to whether the processes should be different when the objective of an experimental biomedical intervention is to improve individual appearance, performance, or capability rather than to prevent, cure, or mitigate disease . This essay (...) examines this question in order to ensure that subjects in biomedical enhancement research receive adequate protection. (shrink)

There are two critical steps in determining whether a medical experiment involving human subjects can be conducted in an ethical manner: assessing risks and potential benefits and obtaining potential subjects’ informed consent. Although an extensive literature on both of these aspects exists, virtually nothing has been written about human experimentation for which the objective is not to prevent, cure, or mitigate a disease or condition, but to enhance human capabilities. One exception is a 2004 article (...) by Rebecca Dresser on preimplantation genetic modification — one of the most controversial enhancement technologies — in which she states, “Under existing research ethics principles, it would be unethical for investigators to perform modifications exposing embryos expected to develop into healthy children to significant risk in exchange for a possible physical or mental enhancement.” But Dresser does not explain why such an experiment would be unethical under existing principles, and her conclusion is not self-evident. (shrink)

Globalization and Human Subjectivity argues that Hegelian subjectivity could serve as a philosophical basis for a new conception of human subjectivity for the age of globalization. Why, then, does globalization demand a new conception of human subjectivity at all? What constitutes the Hegelian subjectivity such that it is not only relevant and but also necessary to the contemporary, postmodern context of globalization? This book largely addresses these two questions. Capitalist globalization, the context in which we find ourselves (...) today, strategically leads to the “death of the subject,” in the sense that it reduces human beings merely to consumers who, without critical subjectivity, simply succumb to the imperialism of a globalizing market. In this context, we are impelled to envision a new conception of human subjectivity for the age of globalization. This book explores Hegel’s view on human subjectivity as spiritual subjectivity, particularly presented in his Phenomenology of Spirit, which could function as a new anthropological vision about what it means to be authentically human in a globalizing world, that is, a sort of cosmopolitan citizen who is constantly universalizing oneself through self-transcending, self-determined ethico-political actions in solidarity with others to create a global community of co-existence and co-prosperity for all. (shrink)

Both international and federal regulations exist to ensure that scientists perform research on human subjects in an environment free of coercion and in which the benefits of the research are commensurate with the risks involved. Ensuring that these conditions hold is difficult, and perhaps even more so when protocols include the issue of monetary compensation of research subjects. The morality of paying human research subjects has been hotly debated for over 40 years, and the grounds (...) for this debate have ranged from discussion of legal rights, economic rights, philosophical principles of vulnerability and altruism to bioethical concepts of consent, best-interest determination, and justice theory. However, the thought surrounding these issues has evolved over time, and the way we think about the role of the human research subject today is markedly different than the way we thought in the past. Society first thought of the research subject as an altruist, necessarily giving of his time to benefit society as a whole. As time progressed, many suggested that the subject should not need to sacrifice himself for research: if something goes wrong, someone should compensate the subject for injuries. The concept of redress evolved into a system in which subjects were offered money as an inducement to participate in research, sometimes merely to offset the monetary costs of participation, but sometimes even to mitigate the risks of the study. This article examines ethical and legal conversations regarding compensation from the 1960s through today, examining theories of the ethics of compensation both comparatively and critically. In conclusion, we put forward an ethical framework for treating paid research subjects, with an attempt to use this framework as a means of resolving some of the more difficult problems with paying human subjects in research. (shrink)

Developing work in the theories of action and explanation, Eldridge argues that moral and political philosophers require accounts of what is historically possible, while historians require rough philosophical understandings of ideals that merit reasonable endorsement. Both Immanuel Kant and Walter Benjamin recognize this fact. Each sees a special place for religious consciousness and critical practice in the articulation and revision of ideals that are to have cultural effect, but they differ sharply in the forms of religious-philosophical understanding, cultural criticism, and (...) political practice that they favor. Kant defends a liberal, reformist, Protestant stance, emphasizing the importance of liberty, individual rights, and democratic institutions. His fullest picture of movement toward a moral culture appears in Religion within the Bounds of Mere Reason, where he describes conjecturally the emergence of an ethical commonwealth.Benjamin defends a politics of improvisatory alertness and consciousness-raising that is suspicious of progress and liberal reform. He practices a form of modernist, materialist criticism that is strongly rooted in his encounters with Kant, Hölderlin, and Goethe. His fullest, finished picture of this critical practice appears in One-Way Street, where he traces the continuing force of unsatisfied desires.By drawing on both Kant and Benjamin, Eldridge hopes to avoid both moralism and waywardness. And in doing so, he seeks to make better sense of the commitment-forming, commitment-revising, anxious, reflective and sometimes grownup acculturated human subjects we are. (shrink)

This paper explores ethical considerations for active studies of circumcision, i.e., the amputation of the foreskin, in the form of a case study of three major trials performed in African countries in the early 2000s. The paper outlines the function of the foreskin and method and history of its amputation as well as its current use in attempting to combat the global AIDS crisis. These trials are then interrogated in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. In particular, the irreversible nature (...) of amputation is given great consideration. The case studies are found to have serious failures in terms of the modern iteration of the Declaration of Helsinki. This paper calls for extreme scrutiny in accordance with international norms relating to the ethical treatment of human subjects in a research context of studies of circumcision if and when they are proposed again. (shrink)

A collaborative team of environmental sociologists, community psychologists, religious studies scholars, environmental studies/science researchers and engineers has been working together to design and implement new training in research ethics, culture and community-based approaches for place-based communities and cultural groups. The training is designed for short and semester-long graduate courses at several universities in the northeastern US. The team received a 3 year grant from the US National Science Foundation’s Ethics Education in Science and Engineering in 2010. This manuscript details the (...) curriculum topics developed that incorporate ethical principles, particularly for group protections/benefits within the field practices of environmental/engineering researchers. (shrink)

The experimental method is designed to secure the reliable attribution of causal relationships by means of controlled comparison across conditions. Doing so, however, depends upon the reduction of uncertainties and inconsistencies in the process of comparison; and this poses particularly significant challenges for the behavioral and social sciences because they work with human subjects, whose malleability and complexity often interact in unexpected ways with experimental manipulations, thus resulting in unpredictable behavior. Drawing on the Science and Technology Studies perspective (...) and one of our authors’ experiences in experimental work, this paper examines how experimental social scientists manage to establish objectivity and standardization in the face of vagaries arising from working with human subjects. In identifying experimental researchers’ solutions to this challenge, we draw on methodological discussions among applied social scientists as naturally occurring data, through which we show how some seemingly mundane practices play essential roles in extracting patterns out of otherwise unpredictable behaviors in the lab. Closely examining such strategies, we reveal the inherent instabilities in the experimental method when adopted in the social sciences and discuss their methodological implications. In conclusion, we make tentative suggestions for escaping the kinds of methodological impasses which we have identified. (shrink)

On November 14, 1996, an in-depth report on the recruiting and testing practices of Lilly Pharmaceuticals appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Laurie Cohen reported that most pharmaceutical companies had difficulty recruiting healthy subjects to participate in testing of “untried and potentially dangerous” drugs. These companies often had to pay subjects up to $250 a day to ensure adequate enrollment, and some even gave referral bonuses to doctors who sent potential subjects their way. Cohen then exposed how (...) Lilly was able to keep costs down: by recruiting homeless alcoholics to serve as research guinea pigs. “In many ways,” Cohen reported, “the practice is mutually beneficial. For Lilly, it is efficient and limits the risk that subjects will sue if harmed by an experiment or divulge particulars of a drug.” And the subjects “get several weeks or months of free room and board, and in interviews they express voluble gratitude for what they often call easy money.”. (shrink)

Visual recording of human subjects is commonly used in biomedical disciplines for clinical, research, legal, academic and even personal purposes. Guidelines on practice standards of biomedical recording have been issued by certain health authorities, associations and journals, but none of the literature discusses this from an Islamic perspective. This article begins with a discussion on the general rules associated with visual recording in Islam, followed by modesty issues in biomedical recording and issues of informed consent and confidentiality. In (...) order to be deemed ethical from the Islamic perspective, all the aforementioned criteria must conform to, or not contradict, Islamic teaching. (shrink)

Experts from different disciplines offer novel ideas for improving research oversight and protection of human subjects.

Over the past 5 years, a series of articles in leading American newspapers has revealed the extent to which the conduct of clinical trials may be affected by inducements offered by corporate research sponsors and accepted by some unscrupulous physicians. The cases described were disturbing. They involved physicians engaged in excessive “enrollment activities” in exchange for money. Some of these physicians perpetrated fraud, falsifying their recruitment records in order to increase their profits. Others ignored exclusion criteria designed to ensure the (...) safety of subjects and the validity of research results, referring their patients to research investigating treatments for conditions from which they did not suffer. One of the articles reports that physicians focusing exclusively on commercial research regularly divulge annual incomes upwards of $1,000,000 with profits in excess of $300,000. Two physicians accumulated well over $10,000,000 through clinical trials activities in less than a decade. (shrink)

There are growing discontinuities between the research practices of data science and established tools of research ethics regulation. Some of the core commitments of existing research ethics regulations, such as the distinction between research and practice, cannot be cleanly exported from biomedical research to data science research. Such discontinuities have led some data science practitioners and researchers to move toward rejecting ethics regulations outright. These shifts occur at the same time as a proposal for major revisions to the Common Rule—the (...) primary regulation governing human-subjects research in the USA—is under consideration for the first time in decades. We contextualize these revisions in long-running complaints about regulation of social science research and argue data science should be understood as continuous with social sciences in this regard. The proposed regulations are more flexible and scalable to the methods of non-biomedical research, yet problematically largely exclude data science methods from human-subjects regulation, particularly uses of public datasets. The ethical frameworks for Big Data research are highly contested and in flux, and the potential harms of data science research are unpredictable. We examine several contentious cases of research harms in data science, including the 2014 Facebook emotional contagion study and the 2016 use of geographical data techniques to identify the pseudonymous artist Banksy. To address disputes about application of human-subjects research ethics in data science, critical data studies should offer a historically nuanced theory of “data subjectivity” responsive to the epistemic methods, harms and benefits of data science and commerce. (shrink)

No consensus yet exists on how to handle incidental fnd-ings in human subjects research. Yet empirical studies document IFs in a wide range of research studies, where IFs are fndings beyond the aims of the study that are of potential health or reproductive importance to the individual research participant. This paper reports recommendations of a two-year project group funded by NIH to study how to manage IFs in genetic and genomic research, as well as imaging research. We conclude (...) that researchers have an obligation to address the possibility of discovering IFs in their protocol and communications with the IRB, and in their consent forms and communications with research participants. Researchers should establish a pathway for handling IFs and communicate that to the IRB and research participants. We recommend a pathway and categorize IFs into those that must be disclosed to research participants, those that may be disclosed, and those that should not be disclosed. (shrink)

Over the past 5 years, a series of articles in leading American newspapers has revealed the extent to which the conduct of clinical trials may be affected by inducements offered by corporate research sponsors and accepted by some unscrupulous physicians. The cases described were disturbing. They involved physicians engaged in excessive “enrollment activities” in exchange for money. Some of these physicians perpetrated fraud, falsifying their recruitment records in order to increase their profits. Others ignored exclusion criteria designed to ensure the (...) safety of subjects and the validity of research results, referring their patients to research investigating treatments for conditions from which they did not suffer. One of the articles reports that physicians focusing exclusively on commercial research regularly divulge annual incomes upwards of $1,000,000 with profits in excess of $300,000. Two physicians accumulated well over $10,000,000 through clinical trials activities in less than a decade. (shrink)

Clinical testing of nanomedicines presents two challenges to prevailing, human subject-centered frameworks governing research ethics. First, some nanomedical applications may present risk to persons other than research subjects. Second, pressures encountered in testing nanomedicines may present threats to the kinds of collaborations and collective activities needed for supporting clinical translation and redeeming research risk. In this article, I describe how similar challenges were encountered and addressed in gene transfer, and sketch policy options that might be explored in the (...) nanomedicine translation arena. (shrink)

Like all policies, contemporary human research policies are the product of their history. The scandals and traumas motivating their creation — the Nazi doctors trials, Tuskegee, the Milgram experiment on obedience — however different in their particulars, all share a common narrative: a scientist, pursuing valued social ends, runs roughshod over the personal interests of disadvantaged human subjects. From the Nuremberg code through the latest revisions of the Declaration of Helsinki, research ethics policies have sought to erect (...) a sphere of protection around the latter.As a consequence of this history, all major policies start with a well-rehearsed model of human investigations. Clinical research is viewed as an encounter between investigators and volunteers. The clinical investigator is given certain duties. The human volunteer has certain moral entitlements. What is ethically at stake in human investigations inheres in the nature and quality of the interactions between investigators and volunteers. These interactions involve an asymmetry because the investigator has privileged knowledge and influence. (shrink)

The article rejects various attempts to negate the subjectivity of human embryo, formulated among others in the Polish debate entitled 'Stem cells - life for life?' and organised by the Ministry of Scientific Research and Information Technology in 2003 and 2004. The Author thinks that the proposal to treat a human embryo as a deceased donor of organs, is wrong both in the field of embryology and philosophical anthropology. It is also wrong to question the subjectivity of (...) class='Hi'>human embryo using various criteria of growth (developed nervous system, brain, consciousness, participation in the life of society and looking after one's own interests). For these criteria do not define humanity but describe human being in various phases of expressions of his/her human nature. That is why it is not acceptable to make the right to life conditional on the stage and degree of the actualization of humanity. Furthermore, one cannot justify the deprivation of the subjectivity of human embryo because of medical progress and the so-called good of humankind. The acceleration of progress cannot be done at the cost of life of some group of human beings. (shrink)

The somewhat disturbing success of bioethics as a discipline is probably due to the unique nature of its subject matter. Indeed what is it that happens when scientific interest, with its particular resources and language, turns toward the study of the human body? Can this body be instrumentalized like any other object, or do the sciences have to give way here before a taboo subject? Have the sciences not, without their knowing it, taken on an unprecedented signification? The truly (...) prodigious growth of new fields of biological knowledge has thrust biology into the public arena. Extending more than ever beyond the status of narrowly scientific knowledge, these new fields have taken on a mythological and normative character in the social imagination. (shrink)

There is considerable confusion regarding the ethical appropriateness of using incentives in research with human subjects. Previous work on determining whether incentives are unethical considers them as a form of undue influence or coercive offer. We understand the ethical issue of undue influence as an issue, not of coercion, but of corruption of judgment. By doing so we find that, for the most part, the use of incentives to recruit and retain research subjects is innocuous. But there (...) are some instances where it is not. Specifically, incentives become problematic when conjoined with the following factors, singly or in combination with one another: where the subject is in a dependency relationship with the researcher, where the risks are particularly high, where the research is degrading, where the participant will only consent if the incentive is relatively large because the participant's aversion to the study is strong, and where the aversion is a principled one. The factors we have identified and the kinds of judgments they require differ substantially from those considered crucial in most previous discussions of the ethics of employing incentives in research with human subjects. (shrink)

Non-lethal weapons have become an increasingly important class of weapons. Creating these armaments requires examination of ethical issues in their research and development processes. Chief a...