Unequal treatment of human research subjects
- 384 Downloads
Unequal treatment of human research subjects is a significant ethical concern, because justice in research involving human subjects requires equal protection of rights and equal protection from harm and exploitation. Disputes sometimes arise concerning the issue of unequal treatment of research subjects. Allegedly unequal treatment occurs when subjects are treated differently and there is a genuine dispute concerning the appropriateness of equal treatment. Patently unequal treatment occurs when subjects are treated differently and there is not a genuine dispute about the appropriateness of equal treatment. Allegedly unequal treatment will probably always occur in research with human subjects due to disagreements about fundamental questions of justice. The best way to deal with allegedly unequal treatment is to promote honest and open discussions of the issues at stake. Research regulations can help to minimize patently unequal treatment by providing rules for investigators, ethical review boards, institutions, and sponsors to follow. However, patently unequal treatment may still occur because the regulations are subject to interpretation. Federal agencies have provided interpretive guidance that can help promote consistent review and oversight of human subjects research. Additional direction may be needed on topics that are not adequately covered by current guidance or regulations. International guidelines can help promote equal treatment of human subjects around the globe. While minor variations in the treatment of research subjects should be tolerated and even welcomed, major ones (i.e. those that significantly impact human rights or welfare) should be avoided or minimized.
KeywordsHuman subjects research Justice Equal treatment Ethics Regulation
I would like to thank Bruce Androphy for helpful comments. This research supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). It does not represent the views of the NIEHS or NIH.
- Aristotle. (2003) [350 BCE]. Nichomachean ethics, ed. H. Tredennick, Transl. J.A. Thomson. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
- Barnes, B. 1996. Justice as impartiality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Berlin, I. 1955/1956. Equality. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 301–326.Google Scholar
- Bonham, V., and J. Moreno. 2011. Research with captive populations: Prisoners, students, and soldiers. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, ed. E.J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R.A. Crouch, R.K. Lie, F.G. Miller, and D. Wendler, 461–474. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Brandt, R.B. 1992. Morality, utilitarianism, and rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. 2002. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. http://www.cioms.ch/publications/layout_guide2002.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2013.
- Department of Health and Human Services. 2009. Protection of human subjects. 45 CFR 46. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2013.
- Dworkin, R. 2000. Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Emerson, R.W. 1841. Self-reliance. http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm. Accessed 15 Apr 2014.
- Feinberg, J. 1987. Harm to others. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Food and Drug Administration. 2012. Information Sheet Guidance for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), Clinical investigators, and sponsors. http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/GuidancesInformationSheetsandNotices/ucm113709.htm. Accessed: 15 Dec 2013.
- Food and Drug Administration. 2013a. Institutional Review Boards. 21 CFR 56. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=56. Accessed 15 Dec 2013.
- Food and Drug Administration. 2013b. Protection of Human Subjects. 21 CFR 50. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=50. Accessed 15 Dec 2013.
- Goodin, R.E. 1985. Protecting the vulnerable: A reanalysis of our social responsibilities. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Pres.Google Scholar
- Gosepath, S. 2007. Equality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/. Accessed 6 Dec 2013.
- Grady, C., and C. Denny. 2011. Research involving women. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, ed. E.J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R.A. Crouch, R.K. Lie, F.G. Miller, and D. Wendler, 407–422. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Levine, R.J. 1988. Ethics and regulation of clinical research, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Levine, R.J. 1991. Informed consent: Some challenges to the universal validity of Western model. Law, Medicine and Health Care 19: 107–213.Google Scholar
- Mill, J.S. 2003 [1859, 1863]. Utilitarianism and on liberty. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- National Bioethics Advisory Commission. 1998. Research Involving Persons with Mental Disorders that May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity. https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/capacity/TOC.htm. Accessed 19 Apr 2014.
- National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html. Accessed 6 Dec 2013.
- Nozick, R. 1975. Anarchy, state, utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Office of Human Research Protections. 2013a. Policy and guidance. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/index.html. Accessed: 14 Dec 2013.
- Office of Human Research Protections. 2013b. 2014 Edition of the International Compilation of Human Research Standards. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/2014intlcomp.doc.doc. Accessed 15 Dec 2013.
- Pike, E.R. 2014. In need of remedy: US policy for compensating injured research participants. Journal of Medical Ethics 40(13): 182–185.Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Resnik, D.B. 1998. The ethics of HIV research in developing nations. Bioethics 12(4): 285–306.Google Scholar
- Resnik, D.B. 2003. Exploitation in biomedical research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24(3): 233–259.Google Scholar
- Resnik, D.B. 2005. Eliminating the daily life risks standard of minimal risk. Journal of Medical Ethics 31(1): 35–38.Google Scholar
- Resnik, D.B. 2012. Centralized institutional review boards: Assessing the arguments and evidence. Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices 8(11): 1–13.Google Scholar
- Resnik, D.B., G. Babson, and G.E. Dinse. 2012. Minor changes to previously approved research: a study of IRB policies. IRB 34(4): 9–14.Google Scholar
- Resnik, D.B., E. Parasidis, K. Carroll, J.M. Evans, E.R. Pike, and G.E. Kissling. 2014. Research-related injury compensation policies of U.S. research institutions. IRB 36(1): 12–20.Google Scholar
- Rhodes, R., M.P. Battin, and A. Silvers. 2002. Medicine and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Sandel, M.J. (ed.). 2007. Justice: A reader. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Sen, A. 2011. The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Varmus, H., and D. Satcher. 1997. Ethical complexities of conducting research in developing countries. New England Journal of Medicine 337(12): 1000–1005.Google Scholar
- World Medical Association. 2013. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, 2013 revision. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Accessed: 17 Dec 2013.