Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 79, Issue 3, pp 315–321 | Cite as

Ethical issues in research involving victims of terror

  • Alan R. Fleischman
  • Emily B. Wood
Special Feature: Urban Disaster


Although research after an episode of terror can provide important information to improve the health and well-being of present and future victims, there are unique ethical challenges that need to be addressed. Man-made disasters have profound effects on victims, rescue workers, and their families and on others in the community; this may impair their ability to provide voluntary and uncoerced decisions about research participation. Because such potential participants in research may be vulnerable and also subject to being overburdened with redundant research, they deserve special consideration. We propose specific recommendations to assist investigators, institutional review boards (IRBs), public health officials, and political leaders to help serve the interests of future participants in terror-related research.


Research Proposal Public Health Official Rescue Worker Local IRBs Procedural Safeguard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lundin T. Morbidity following sudden and unexpected bereavement. Br J Psychiatry. 1984;144:84–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murray Parkes C. A typology of disasters. In: Black D, Newman M, Harris-Hendriks J, Mezey G, eds. Psychological Trauma: a Developmental Approach. Glasgow, Scotland: Bell & Bain Ltd; 1997:81–93.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Galea S, Ahern J, Resnick H, et al. Psychological sequelae of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:982–987.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camino G, Bravo M, Rubin-Stipee M, Woodbury M. The impact of disaster on mental health: prospective and retrospective analyses. Int J Ment Health. 1990;19:51–69.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dreman S, Cohen E. Children of victims of terrorism revisited: integrating individual and family treatment approaches. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1990;60(2):204–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pfefferbaum B. The Oklahoma City bombing: organizing the mental health response [American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress, Inc., Web site]. 1996. Available at: Date accessed: March 13, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruzek JI, Zatzick DF. Ethical considerations in research participation among acutely injured trauma survivors: an empirical investigation. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2000;22: 27–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leaning J. Ethics of research in refugee populations. Lancet. 2001;357:1432–1433.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richman N. Ethical issues in disaster and other extreme situations. In: Black D, Newman M, Harris-Hendriks J, Mezey G, eds. Psychological Trauma: a Developmental Approach. Glasgow, Scotland: Bell & Bain Ltd; 1997:374–382.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raphael B, Lundin T, Weisaeth L. A research method for the study of psychological and psychiatric aspects of disaster. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 1989;353:1–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Newman E, Walker EA, Gefland A. Assessing the ethical costs and benefits of traumafocused research. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1999;21:187–196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pope KS. The ethics of research involving memories of trauma. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1999;21:157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norris FH. 50,000 disaster vietims speak: an empirical review of the emprrical literature, 1981–2001. Part 1 of a three-part series; range, magnitude and duration of effects. Prepared for the National Center for PTSD and the Center for Mental Health Services (SAMHSA); September 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    45 CFR §46.111(a) (3): 21 CFR 56.111(a) (3) (1991).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moreno J. Protectionism in research involving human subjects. Background paper prepared for the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Volume 2 of Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants; Bethesda, MD; 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weaver Moore L, Miller M. Initiating research with doubly vulnerable populations. J Adv Nurs. 1999;30(5):1034–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norris FH. 50,000 disaster victims speak: an empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981–2001. Part III of a three-part series; psychosocial resources in the aftermath of disasters. Prepared for the National Center for PTSD and the Center for Mental Health Services (SAMHSA); September 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook. Office for Protection from Research Risk, DHHS. Office for Human Research Protections web site. Avialable at: chapter3.htm. Date accessed: June 18, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Derry P, Baum A. The role of the experimenter in field studies of distressed populations. J Trauma Stress. 1994;7(4):625–635.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Urban Bioethicsthe New York Academy of MedicineNew York
  2. 2.New York Academy of MedicineNew York

Personalised recommendations