Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research Priorities and Protections

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Intellectual Disabilities

Part of the book series: Autism and Child Psychopathology Series ((ACPS))

Abstract

Historically, the involvement of people with intellectual disability in empirical studies has presented researchers with several ethical challenges, including decision-making and informed consent processes. This chapter will review the history of abuse in the field, with a focus on ethical issues emanating from past and contemporary research studies, including the role of key stakeholders in the implementation of safeguards to protect people with intellectual disability. As research efforts are essential for improving the quality of life of people with intellectual disability, this chapter will discuss the prioritization of research themes that progress the agenda to support the inclusion of people with disability in research studies while retaining ethical integrity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 349.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Advisory Committee. (1995). Final report of the advisory committee on human radiation experiments. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amann, J., & Rubinell, S. (2017). Views of community managers on knowledge co-creation in online communities for people with disabilities: Qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(10), e320. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Angell, M. (1992). Editorial responsibility: Protecting human rights by restricting publication of unethical research. In G. Annas & M. Grodin (Eds.), The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code (pp. 276–285). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annas, G., & Grodin, M. (Eds.). (1992). The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code (pp. 276–285). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, P. S. (2007). Assessment of Patients’ Competence to Consent to Treatment. The New England Journal of Medicine, 357, 1834–1840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, D., Raspa, M., Wheeler, A., Edwards, A., Bishop, E., Bann, C., … Appelbaum, P. (2014). Parent ratings of ability to consent for clinical trials in Fragile X Syndrome. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics., 9(3), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614540591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beecher, H. (1959). Experimentation in man. Journal of the American Medical Association., 169, 461–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beecher, H. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine., 274, 1354–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beighton, C., Victor, C., Carey, I. M., Hosking, F., DeWilde, S., Cook, D. G., … Harris, T. (2017). I’m sure we made it a better study…’: Experiences of adults with intellectual disabilities and parent carers of patient and public involvement in a health research study. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629517723485

  • Belmont Report. (1978). Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html

  • Berg, J. (1996). Legal and ethical complexities of consent with cognitively impaired research subjects: Proposed guidelines. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 24(1), 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigby, C., Frawley, P., & Ramcharan, P. (2014). Conceptualizing inclusive research with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calveley, J. (2012). Including adults with intellectual disabilities who lack capacity to consent in research. Nursing Ethics, 19, 558–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733011426818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, E., & Griffiths, C. (2017). Recruitment and consent of adults with intellectual disabilities in a classic grounded theory research study: Ethical and methodological considerations. Disability & Society, 32(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1281793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, L. (2013). Research ethics and intellectual disability: Broadening the debates. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 86(3), 303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleaver, S., Ouellette-Kuntz, H., & Sakar, A. (2010). Participation in intellectual disability research: A review of 20 years of studies. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54(3), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01256.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, J., Rapley, M., & Cummins, R. A. (1999). On, to, for, with–vulnerable people and the practices of the research community. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 27(2), 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J.S. (2018, April, 26). The $3 Million Research Breakdown. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/university-of-illinois-chicago-mani-pavuluri-3-million-research-breakdown

  • Committee on Children with Disabilities. (1998). Auditory integration training and facilitated communication for autism. Pediatrics, 102(2), 431–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran, W. (1982). Subject consent requirements in clinical research: An international perspective for industrial and developing countries. In Z. Bankowski & N. Howard-Jones (Eds.), Human experimentation and medical ethics (pp. 35–79). Geneva, Switzerland: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, A., & McVilly, K. (2004). Ethics guidelines for international, multicenter research involving people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 1(2), 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, G. (2008). Ethics in medical research. In G. Dawson (Ed.), Easy interpretation of biostatistics: The vital link to applying evidence in medical decisions (pp. 128–132). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Declaration of Helsinki (1964). Recommendations guiding doctors in clinical research. Adopted by the 18th World Medical Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964. Retrieved form https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/DoH-Jun1964.pdf

  • Flory, J. H., & Emanuel, E. (2004). Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(13), 1593–1601. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.13.1593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, R. I. (2001). Ethical challenges in the conduct of research involving persons with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 39(2), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glidden, L. (2008). International Review of Research into Mental Retardation (Vol. 35). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gridley, M., Jenkins, W., Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., Sanford, R. N., … Bandura, A. (2017). Controversial psychological research methods and their influence on the development of formal ethical guidelines. In An analysis of Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority: An experimental view (Vol. 70, pp. 9), 9–9),13). New York: Institute of Group Relations, University of Oklahoma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grodin, M., & Glantz, L. (1994). Children as research subjects: Science, ethics, and law. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horner-Johnson, W., & Bailey, D. (2013). Assessing understanding and obtaining consent from adults with intellectual disabilities for a health promotion. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(3), 260–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacono, T. (2006). Ethical challenges and complexities of including people with intellectual disability as participants in research. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 31(3), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250600876392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacono, T., & Carling-Jenkins, R. (2012). The human rights context for ethical requirements for involving people with intellectual disability in medical research. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 1122–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01617.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglis, P., & Cook, T. (2011). Ten top tips for effectively involving people with a learning disability in research. Journal of Learning Disabilities and Offending Behaviour, 2(2), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/20420921111152441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D., Grady, C., & Lederer, S. (2016). “Ethics and clinical research”—the 50th anniversary of Beecher’s bombshell. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(24), 2393–2398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalvemark, S., Hoglund, A. T., Hanssona, M. G., Westerholmb, P., & Arnetza, B. (2004). Living with conflicts-ethical dilemmas and moral distress in the health care system. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1075–1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00279-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, S., & Shapiro, S. (1971). Experiments at the Willowbrook State School. The Lancet, 297(7706), 966–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, S., Ward, R., Giles, J., Bodansky, O., & Jacobs, A. (1959). Infectious hepatitis: Detection of the virus during the incubation period and in clinically in apparent infection. New England Journal of Medicine., 261, 729–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leake, D. B. (2001). Problem solving and reasoning: Case-based. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 12117–12120. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00545-3

  • Lewis, A., & Porter, J. (2004). Interviewing children and young people with learning disabilities: guidelines for researchers and multi-professional practice. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 191–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, M. (1998). Interviewing people with learning disabilities about sensitive topics: A discussion of ethical issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 140–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, K. (2012). “We want respect”: Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities address respect in research. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117(4), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.4.263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, K. E., Conroy, N. E., Kim, C. I., LoBraico, E. J., Prather, E. M., & Olick, R. S. (2016). Is safety in the eye of the beholder? Safeguards in research with adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(5), 424–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, K. E., Conroy, N. E., Olick, R. S., & The Project ETHICS Expert Panel. (2017a). A quantitative study of attitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability: Do stakeholders agree? Disability and Health Journal, 11(3), 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2017.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, K. E., Conroy, N. E., Olick, R. S., & The Project ETHICS Expert Panel (Eds.). (2017b). What’s the harm? Harms in research with adults with intellectual disability. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 122(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-122.1.78

  • McDonald, K. E., Schwartz, N. M., Gibbons, C. M., & Olick, R. S. (2015). “You can’t be cold and scientific” Community views on ethical issues in intellectual disability research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(2), 196–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitka, M. (2008). Chelation therapy trials halted. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300(19), 2236. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. F., Cuskelly, M., & Moni, K. B. (2014). Unanticipated ethical issues in a participatory research project with individuals with intellectual disability. Disability & Society, 29(8), 1305–1318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musto, D. (1999). A historical perspective. In S. Bloch, P. Chodoff, & S. Green (Eds.), Psychiatric ethics 3 (pp. 7–23). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Northway, R. (2014). Editorial: To include or not to include. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities., 18(3), 209–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuremberg Code. (1949). Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 (Vol. 2, pp. 181–182). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuwagaba, E. L., & Rule, P. (2015). Navigating the ethical maze in disability research: Ethical contestations in an African context. Disability & Society, 30(2), 255–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perley, S., Fluss, S., Bankowski, Z., & Simon, F. (1992). The Nuremberg Code: An international overview. In G. Annas & M. Grodin (Eds.), The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code (pp. 157–158). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rios, D., Magasi, S., Novak, C. & Harniss, M. (2016). Conducting accessible research: Including people with disabilities in public health, epidemiological, and outcomes studies. American Journal of Public Health, 106(12), 2137–2144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, N. (2006). Re-conceptualizing the Belmont Report: A community-based participatory research perspective. Journal of Community Practice., 14(4), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v14n0402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, Y., Silove, N., & Williams, K. (2006). Chelation therapy and autism. British Medical Journal, 333(7571), 756. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.333.7571.756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D., & Mitchell, A. (2001). Sacrifices for the Miracle: The polio vaccine research and children with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 39(5), 405–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stack, E. E., & McDonald, K. (2018). We are “both in charge, the academics and self-advocates”: Empowerment in community-based participatory research. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 15(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalker, K. (1998). Some Ethical and Methodological Issues in Research with People with Learning Difficulties. Disability & Society, 13(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599826885Stack

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoneman, Z. (2009). Disability research methodology: Current issues and future challenges. In S. L. Odom, R. H. Horner, M. E. Snell, & J. Blacher (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 35–44). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Synnot, A., Ryan, R., Prictor, M., Fetherstonhaugh, D., & Parker, B. (2014). Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2014(5), CD003717. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003717.pub3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watchman, K. (2016). Investigating the lived experience of people with Down syndrome with Dementia: Overcoming Methodological and Ethical Challenges. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 13(2), 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisstub, D., & Arboleda-Flórez, J. (1997). Ethical research with the developmentally disabled. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 42(5), 492–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, D. (1998). Radiation experiments on children at the Fernald and Wrentham schools: Lessons for protocols in human subject research. Accountability in Research, 6(1–2), 103–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A., & Moore, S. (2011). Universal design of research: Inclusion of persons with disabilities in mainstream biomedical studies. Science Translational Medicine, 3(82), 82cm12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woelders, S., Abma, T., Visser, T., & Schipper, K. (2015). The power of difference in inclusive research. Disability & Society, 30(4), 528–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.1031880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (2013). How to use the ICF: A practical manual for using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Exposure draft for comment. October 2013. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan, E., & Minur, K. (2004). Regulatory and ethical principles in research involving children and individuals with developmental disabilities. Ethics Behavior, 14, 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Susana Gavidia-Payne & Mervyn Jackson

Authors
  1. Susana Gavidia-Payne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mervyn Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susana Gavidia-Payne .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

    Johnny L. Matson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gavidia-Payne, S., Jackson, M. (2019). Research Priorities and Protections. In: Matson, J.L. (eds) Handbook of Intellectual Disabilities. Autism and Child Psychopathology Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20843-1_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation