Abstract
The conduct of prior ethics review of human research projects helps to protect vulnerable groups or populations from potential negative impacts of research. Contemporary considerations in human research considers the concept of vulnerability in terms of access to research opportunities, impacts on the consenting process, selection bias, and the generalisability of results. Recent work questions the validity of using enumerated lists as a check box approach to protect research participants from exploitation. Through the use of broad categories to treat cohorts of human research participants as homogenous classes and label some participants as vulnerable merely because they are members of a particular class, some ethics reviewers have used the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research to strip individuals of their “ethical equality”. Labelling people as vulnerable does not help researchers or human research ethics committee members develop an understanding of the complexities of applying the principles of respect and of justice in ethical decision-making. Conversely, defining specific cohorts of research participants as needing nuanced ethical consideration, due to their vulnerable nature, may imply that other population groups need not be considered vulnerable. We contend that this assumption is erroneous. This paper explores the way that human research ethics guidance documents treat vulnerability within the Australian context and draws on contemporary discussion to focus an alternative perspective based on the principles in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research for researchers and human research ethics committee members to consider.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Belmont Report. 1979. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
Consumers Health Forum of Australia (CHF). 2016. Statement on Consumer and Community involvement in Health and Medical Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (2016).
CIOMS. 2016. Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences in their International Ethical Guidelines for Health-Related Research Involving Humans (CIOMS 2016).
DuBois, James M., Laura Beskow, Jean Campbell, Karen Dugosh, David Festinger, Sarah Hartz, Roslina James, and Charles Lidz. 2012. Restoring Balance: A Consensus Statement on the Protection of Vulnerable Research Participants. American Journal of Public Health 102 (2): 2220–2225.
Jennings, Bruce. 2016. Reconceptualizing Autonomy: A Relational Turn in Bioethics. Hastings Center Report 46 (3): 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.544.
Lange, M.M., W. Rogers, and S. Dodds. 2013. Vulnerability in Research Ethics: A Way Forward. Bioethics 27 (6): 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12032.
National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007. 2018. The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Peter, Elizabeth, and Judith Friedland. 2017. Recognizing Risk and Vulnerability in Research Ethics: Imagining the “What Ifs?”. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 12 (2): 107–116.
Rogers, Wendy, and Margaret Meek Lange. 2013. Rethinking the Vulnerability of Minority Populations in Research. American Journal of Public Health 103 (12): 2141–2146.
Racine, Eric, and Bracken Roche. 2019. Enriching the Concept of Vulnerability in Research Ethics: An Integrative and Functional Account. Bioethics 2019 (33): 19–34.
Rhodes, Rosamond. 2005. Rethinking Research Ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 5 (1): 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160590900678.
Rudd, Kevin. 2008. Apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples, https://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/our-people/apology-to-australias-indigenous-peoples.
ten Have, Henk. 2015. Respect for Human Vulnerability: The Emergence of a New Principle in Bioethics. Bioethical Inquiry 2015 (12): 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9641-9.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that no grant or funding was received for the production of this paper and that there are no interests that need to be declared.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pieper, I.J., Thomson, C.J.H. Vulnerability in human research. Monash Bioeth. Rev. 38, 68–82 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-020-00110-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-020-00110-4