Advertisement

Der Chirurg

, Volume 89, Issue 3, pp 178–184 | Cite as

Globalisierung in der medizinischen Forschung

  • H.-J. Ehni
  • U. WiesingEmail author
Leitthema
  • 248 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Die Globalisierung der klinischen Forschung gewinnt zusehends an Dynamik. Insbesondere Schwellenländer wie Brasilien, Indien, Russland und China verzeichnen ein deutliches Wachstum bei klinischen Studien. Dieser Trend erzeugt unterschiedliche ethische Probleme, die wir im vorliegenden Artikel untersuchen werden. Teils werden allgemein akzeptierte ethische Regeln wie die Begutachtung von Studien durch Ethikkommissionen nicht eingehalten, teils entstehen schwer zu lösende Konfliktsituationen. Umstritten ist etwa, welchen Behandlungsstandard Forscher und Sponsoren bei internationalen Studien zur Verfügung stellen müssen. Erschwert werden diese Konflikte noch durch ein grundlegendes Dilemma: Mehr Forschung in Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländern zu den dort vorherrschenden Erkrankungen ist notwendig. Gleichzeitig stellt der Schutz der dortigen Studienteilnehmer eine besondere Herausforderung dar. Internationale Kommissionen und Richtlinien haben in den letzten Jahren deutliche Fortschritte erzielt, um diese Konflikte zu lösen. Dennoch muss die weitere Entwicklung sorgfältig untersucht werden. Anreize müssen geschaffen werden, um bisher vernachlässigte Erkrankungen besser zu erforschen. Fehlentwicklungen und Missbrauch müssen durch angemessene internationale ethische Standards verhindert werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Entwicklungsländer Forschungsethik Internationale Richtlinien Behandlungsstandard Gerecht geteilter Nutzen 

Globalization in medical research

Abstract

The globalization of clinical research is gaining momentum. In particular, emerging countries, such as Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa show a significant increase in clinical trials. This trend is generating various ethical problems, which are examined in the present article. Sometimes, generally accepted ethical rules, such as the evaluation of clinical trials by ethics commissions are not respected and sometimes conflicts are generated which are difficult to resolve. For instance, it is controversial which standard of care researchers and sponsors have to provide in an international study. These conflicts are exacerbated by a fundamental dilemma: more research on diseases prevalent in developing and emerging countries is necessary. At the same time, the protection of study participants in those countries creates particular challenges. In recent years, international commissions and guidelines have achieved significant progress in solving these conflicts; however, the further development has to be analyzed very carefully. Incentives for better research on neglected diseases have to be created. Undesirable developments and abuse have to be prevented by appropriate international ethical standards.

Keywords

Developing countries Research ethics International guidelines Standard of care Fairly distributed benefits 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

H.-J. Ehni und U. Wiesing geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Atal I, Trinquart L, Porcher R et al (2015) Differential globalization of industry- and non-industry – sponsored clinical trials. PLoS ONE 10:e145122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Consultative Expert Working Group (2011) Report of the third meeting of the Consultative Expert working Group on research and development, financing and development: financing and coordinationGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (Cioms) (2016) International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans, 4. Aufl. Cioms, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, USA (2003) The globalization of clinical trials: a growing challenge in protecting human subjects: executive summary (2001). J Int Bioethique 14:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emanuel EJ (2008) Benefits to host countries. In: Emanuel E, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D (Hrsg) The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, S 719–728Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jeong S, Sohn M, Kim JH et al (2017) Current globalization of drug interventional clinical trials: characteristics and associated factors. Trials 18(288):2011–2013Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lavery JV (2007) Ethical issues in international biomedical research: a casebook. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lie RK, Emanuel E, Grady C et al (2004) The standard of care debate: the declaration of Helsinki versus the international consensus opinion. J Med Ethics 30:190–193CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    London AJ (2007) Equipoise. In: Steinbock B (Hrsg) The Oxford handbook of bioethics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    London AJ, Zollman KJ (2010) Research at the auction block. Hastings Cent Rep 40:34–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lurie P, Wolfe SM (1997) Unethical trials of interventions to reduce perinatal transmission of the human Immunodeficiency virus in developing countries. N Engl J Med 337(12):853–856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Macklin R (2004) Double standards in medical research in developing countries. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Bioethics Advisory Commission (2001) Ethical and policy issues in international research: clinical trials in developing countries, volume I: report and recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory CommissionGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002) The ethics of clinical research in developing countries. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Participants in the Conference on Ethical Aspects of Research in Developing Countries (2004) Moral standards for research in developing countries: from „reasonable availability“ to „fair benefits“. Hastings Cent Rep 34:17–27Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petryna A (2009) When experiments travel: clinical trials and the global search for human subjects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pogge TW (2005) Human Rights and Global Health. Metaphilosophy 36(1–2):182–209.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2005.00362.x
  18. 18.
    Silva RED, Amato AA, Guilhem DB et al (2016) Globalization of clinical trials: ethical and regulatory implications. Int J Clin Trials 3:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission (2003) Opinion Nr 17 on the ethical aspects of clinical research in developing countries. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Varmus H, Satcher D (1997) Ethical complexities of conducting research in developing countries. N Engl J Med 337:1003–1005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vidyasagar D (2006) Global notes: the 10/90 gap disparities in global health research. J Perinatol 26:55–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wenner DM, Brody BA, Jarman AF et al (2012) Do surgical trials meet the scientific standards for clinical trials? J Am Coll Surg 215:722–730CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    World Medical Association (2013) WMA declaration of Helsinki – ethical principles for medical research involving human subjectsGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    http://www.dgch.de/index.php?id=161. Zugegriffen: 03.08.2017

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Ethik und Geschichte der MedizinUniversität TübingenTübingenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations