What Do the Various Principles of Justice Mean Within the Concept of Benefit Sharing?
- 331 Downloads
The concept of benefit sharing pertains to the act of giving something in return to the participants, communities, and the country that have participated in global health research or bioprospecting activities. One of the key concerns of benefit sharing is the ethical justifications or reasons to support the practice of the concept in global health research and bioprospecting. This article evaluates one of such ethical justifications and its meaning to benefit sharing, namely justice. We conducted a systematic review to map the various principles of justice that are linked to benefit sharing and analysed their meaning to the concept of benefit sharing. Five principles of justice (commutative, distributive, global, procedural, and compensatory) have been shown to be relevant in the nuances of benefit sharing in both global health research and bioprospecting. The review findings indicate that each of these principles of justice provides a different perspective for a different benefit sharing rationale. For example, commutative justice provides a benefit sharing rationale that is focused on fair exchange of benefits between research sponsors and communities. Distributive justice produces a benefit sharing rationale that is focused on improving the health needs of the vulnerable research communities. We have suggested that a good benefit sharing framework particularly in global health research would be more beneficial if it combines all the principles of justice in its formulation. Nonetheless, there is a need for empirical studies to examine the various principles of justice and their nuances in benefit sharing among stakeholders in global health research.
KeywordsBenefit sharing Justice Post-trial obligations Resource-limited countries Research ethics
- Ambrose, M.L., and A. Arnaud. 2005. Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually distinct? In Handbook of organizational justice, edited by J. Greenberg and J. Colquitt, 59–84. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Bachmann, A. 2011. Ethical aspects of access and benefit-sharing (ABS): Environment. Zurich: Swiss Federal Council.Google Scholar
- Ballantyne, A. 2008. “Fair benefits” accounts of exploitation require a normative principle of fairness: Response to Gbadegesin and Wendler, and Emanuel et al. Bioethics 22(4): 239–244.Google Scholar
- Beauchamp, T., and J. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bone, R.G. 2003. Agreeing to fair process: The problem with contractarian theories of procedural fairness. Boston University Law Review 83(1): 485–552.Google Scholar
- CBD. 1992. Convention on biological diversity. Rio de Janeiro: UNEP.Google Scholar
- Daniels, N. 2008. Just health: Meeting health needs fairly, 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Holmila, E. 2005. Common heritage of mankind in the law of the sea. Acta Societatis Martensis 1(1): 187–205.Google Scholar
- HUGO Ethics Committee. 2000. HUGO urges genetic benefit-sharing. Community Genetics 3(2): 88–92.Google Scholar
- Kamuya, D.M., V. Marsh, P. Njuguna, P. Munywoki, M. Parker, and S. Molyneux. 2014. “When they see us, it’s like they have seen the benefits!” Experiences of study benefits negotiations in community-based studies on the Kenyan coast. BMC Medical Ethics 15: 90. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- London, A.J., and J.S. Zollman. 2010. Research at the auction block: Problems for the fair benefits approach to international research. The Hastings Center Report 40(4): 34–45.Google Scholar
- McGrew, A. 2004. Cosmopolitanism and global justice. Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies 3(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
- Participants in the Conference on Ethical Aspects of Research in Developing Countries. 2004. Moral standards for research in developing countries. The Hastings Center Report 34(3): 17–27.Google Scholar
- Petryna, A. 2007. Clinical trials offshored: On private sector science and public health. Bio Societies 2(1): 21–40.Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. 1999a. A theory of justice, revised ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. 1999b. The law of peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Schroeder, D. 2009. Justice and benefit sharing. In Indigenous peoples, consent and benefit sharing: Lessons from the San-Hoodia case, edited by R. Wynberg, 11–27. New York: Springer Science+Bussiness Media.Google Scholar
- Schroeder, D., and B. Pisupati. 2010. Ethics, justice and the convention on biological diversity. Lancashire: UNEP.Google Scholar
- Simm, K. 2007a. Benefit sharing frameworks—justifications for and against benefit sharing in human genetic research. A report of GenBenefit. https://www.uclan.ac.uk/research/explore/projects/assets/cpe_genbenefit_frameworks.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2016.
- Van Parijs, P. 2007. International distributive justice. In A companion to comparative political philosophy, 2nd ed., edited by R. Goodin, P. Pettit, and T. Pogge, 638–652. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar