Alan Wertheimer
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199743513
- eISBN:
- 9780199827145
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199743513.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Political Philosophy
Clinical research requires that some people be used and possibly harmed for the benefit of others. What justifies such use of people? This book provides an in-depth philosophical analysis of several ...
More
Clinical research requires that some people be used and possibly harmed for the benefit of others. What justifies such use of people? This book provides an in-depth philosophical analysis of several crucial issues in the ethics of clinical research. Much writing on the ethics of research with human subjects assumes that participation in research is a distinctive activity that requires distinctive moral principles. In most contexts, we allow people to choose the activities in which they engage. By contrast, people are permitted to participate in research only after IRBs determine that it is appropriate for them to do so. Although we assume that consent to participate in research must be preceded by an elaborate disclosure of information, we make no such assumption in many other areas of life. Although it is thought to be morally problematic to provide financial inducements to prospective subjects, we make no such assumptions when we hire people as loggers, fishermen, and fire fighters. Although we readily accept the “off-shoring” of manufacturing, many regard the off-shoring of medical research with great skepticism. This book seeks to widen the lens through which we consider such issues. When we do so, we will find that many standard principles of research ethics are difficult to defend.Less
Clinical research requires that some people be used and possibly harmed for the benefit of others. What justifies such use of people? This book provides an in-depth philosophical analysis of several crucial issues in the ethics of clinical research. Much writing on the ethics of research with human subjects assumes that participation in research is a distinctive activity that requires distinctive moral principles. In most contexts, we allow people to choose the activities in which they engage. By contrast, people are permitted to participate in research only after IRBs determine that it is appropriate for them to do so. Although we assume that consent to participate in research must be preceded by an elaborate disclosure of information, we make no such assumption in many other areas of life. Although it is thought to be morally problematic to provide financial inducements to prospective subjects, we make no such assumptions when we hire people as loggers, fishermen, and fire fighters. Although we readily accept the “off-shoring” of manufacturing, many regard the off-shoring of medical research with great skepticism. This book seeks to widen the lens through which we consider such issues. When we do so, we will find that many standard principles of research ethics are difficult to defend.
Phyllis Solomon, Mary M. Cavanaugh, and Jeffrey Draine
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195333190
- eISBN:
- 9780199864317
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333190.003.0002
- Subject:
- Social Work, Research and Evaluation
The intention of Chapter 2 is not to review general research ethics, but rather to examine ethical issues particularly relevant to RCTs. The ethical justification for RCTs from both the perspectives ...
More
The intention of Chapter 2 is not to review general research ethics, but rather to examine ethical issues particularly relevant to RCTs. The ethical justification for RCTs from both the perspectives of social work ethics and research ethics are explored, as well as overall ethical issues in designing RCTs. The development of well-executed RCTs as ethical research protocols involves thoughtful consideration of such factors as the following: the most appropriate questions to ask, who may be ethically eligible to be randomized, what are the most ethical comparisons to make, and how and when individuals should be randomized. Research ethics (that is, the proper conduct of scientific investigation based on cultural norms, as well as practice and professional ethics) must be taken into account in planning and designing an RCT. Special consideration is given to the ethics of internet RCTs given their increasing use.Less
The intention of Chapter 2 is not to review general research ethics, but rather to examine ethical issues particularly relevant to RCTs. The ethical justification for RCTs from both the perspectives of social work ethics and research ethics are explored, as well as overall ethical issues in designing RCTs. The development of well-executed RCTs as ethical research protocols involves thoughtful consideration of such factors as the following: the most appropriate questions to ask, who may be ethically eligible to be randomized, what are the most ethical comparisons to make, and how and when individuals should be randomized. Research ethics (that is, the proper conduct of scientific investigation based on cultural norms, as well as practice and professional ethics) must be taken into account in planning and designing an RCT. Special consideration is given to the ethics of internet RCTs given their increasing use.
Kevin Elliott
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199755622
- eISBN:
- 9780199827121
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755622.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This book examines a variety of ways in which societal values can be more effectively integrated into the numerous judgments associated with policy‐relevant environmental research. It provides a ...
More
This book examines a variety of ways in which societal values can be more effectively integrated into the numerous judgments associated with policy‐relevant environmental research. It provides a detailed analysis of contemporary research on the hypothesis of hormesis (i.e., beneficial biological effects caused by low‐dose exposure to pollutants that are ordinarily toxic). On the basis of this analysis, as well as shorter case studies of endocrine disruption and multiple chemical sensitivity, the book proposes three lessons. First, university conflict‐of‐interest policies are significantly limited in their ability to prevent interest groups from “hijacking” academic research on sensitive policy‐relevant topics. Therefore, alternative strategies are needed to preserve science that serves the public interest. Second, concerned citizens and policy makers need to more carefully determine the most appropriate forms of broadly based deliberation to be employed in response to specific areas of sensitive, policy‐relevant research. Third, the principle of informed consent, which currently provides guidance in the medical field, suggests a promising ethical framework that can help environmental scientists who disseminate debated findings to the public. Throughout, the book highlights many of the crucial ethical and societal questions surrounding research on the hormesis hypothesis. It thereby constitutes the first book‐length manuscript to provide guidance to the concerned citizens, industry groups, scientists, and policy makers who are exploring ways to respond to this phenomenon.Less
This book examines a variety of ways in which societal values can be more effectively integrated into the numerous judgments associated with policy‐relevant environmental research. It provides a detailed analysis of contemporary research on the hypothesis of hormesis (i.e., beneficial biological effects caused by low‐dose exposure to pollutants that are ordinarily toxic). On the basis of this analysis, as well as shorter case studies of endocrine disruption and multiple chemical sensitivity, the book proposes three lessons. First, university conflict‐of‐interest policies are significantly limited in their ability to prevent interest groups from “hijacking” academic research on sensitive policy‐relevant topics. Therefore, alternative strategies are needed to preserve science that serves the public interest. Second, concerned citizens and policy makers need to more carefully determine the most appropriate forms of broadly based deliberation to be employed in response to specific areas of sensitive, policy‐relevant research. Third, the principle of informed consent, which currently provides guidance in the medical field, suggests a promising ethical framework that can help environmental scientists who disseminate debated findings to the public. Throughout, the book highlights many of the crucial ethical and societal questions surrounding research on the hormesis hypothesis. It thereby constitutes the first book‐length manuscript to provide guidance to the concerned citizens, industry groups, scientists, and policy makers who are exploring ways to respond to this phenomenon.
Franklin G. Miller and Joseph J. Fins
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780198567219
- eISBN:
- 9780191724084
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198567219.003.0009
- Subject:
- Neuroscience, Behavioral Neuroscience
This chapter elucidates ethical considerations in designing and carrying out clinical research on people with brain disorders based on an approach to research ethics derived from American ...
More
This chapter elucidates ethical considerations in designing and carrying out clinical research on people with brain disorders based on an approach to research ethics derived from American philosophical pragmatism. Focusing on placebo-controlled trials of pharmacological treatments and deep-brain stimulation for psychiatric and neurological disorders, the chapter reflects how moral principles and standards can conflict when applied to contextually complex situations. To guide ethical judgment, it calls for a careful balancing of morally relevant considerations and an understanding of moral norms rather than categorical or absolute rules.Less
This chapter elucidates ethical considerations in designing and carrying out clinical research on people with brain disorders based on an approach to research ethics derived from American philosophical pragmatism. Focusing on placebo-controlled trials of pharmacological treatments and deep-brain stimulation for psychiatric and neurological disorders, the chapter reflects how moral principles and standards can conflict when applied to contextually complex situations. To guide ethical judgment, it calls for a careful balancing of morally relevant considerations and an understanding of moral norms rather than categorical or absolute rules.
Alan Wertheimer
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199743513
- eISBN:
- 9780199827145
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199743513.003.0002
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Political Philosophy
Although research ethics has generally emphasized the importance of autonomy and informed consent, it has not faced up to the fact that the reigning regulatory and ethical frameworks for human ...
More
Although research ethics has generally emphasized the importance of autonomy and informed consent, it has not faced up to the fact that the reigning regulatory and ethical frameworks for human research emphasize the protection of research subjects and is paternalistic at its core. This chapter argues that this regulatory regime is best justified as a form of group soft-paternalism in which IRBs compensate for deficiencies in subject decision-making.Less
Although research ethics has generally emphasized the importance of autonomy and informed consent, it has not faced up to the fact that the reigning regulatory and ethical frameworks for human research emphasize the protection of research subjects and is paternalistic at its core. This chapter argues that this regulatory regime is best justified as a form of group soft-paternalism in which IRBs compensate for deficiencies in subject decision-making.
Onora O'Neill
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780195325195
- eISBN:
- 9780199776412
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195325195.003.0007
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy, General
Contemporary work on research ethics often points to Nazi inhumanity and abuse of research subjects as a prelude to arguing that research on human subjects requires their fully informed consent. By ...
More
Contemporary work on research ethics often points to Nazi inhumanity and abuse of research subjects as a prelude to arguing that research on human subjects requires their fully informed consent. By contrast, the Nuremberg Code of 1947 demanded more robustly that fundamental obligations not to force, deceive, or use duress be respected, in order to ensure that research participation would be voluntary. Subsequent codes, such as the Declaration of Helsinki, set more exacting regulatory requirements aimed at securing highly specific and explicit consent. This supposed improvement may be neither feasible nor ethically superior.Less
Contemporary work on research ethics often points to Nazi inhumanity and abuse of research subjects as a prelude to arguing that research on human subjects requires their fully informed consent. By contrast, the Nuremberg Code of 1947 demanded more robustly that fundamental obligations not to force, deceive, or use duress be respected, in order to ensure that research participation would be voluntary. Subsequent codes, such as the Declaration of Helsinki, set more exacting regulatory requirements aimed at securing highly specific and explicit consent. This supposed improvement may be neither feasible nor ethically superior.
Adil E Shamoo and David B Resnik
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195368246
- eISBN:
- 9780199867615
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368246.001.0001
- Subject:
- Biology, Disease Ecology / Epidemiology, Biochemistry / Molecular Biology
Recent scandals and controversies—such as the falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism of data in federally funded science; the manipulation and distortion of research sponsored by private ...
More
Recent scandals and controversies—such as the falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism of data in federally funded science; the manipulation and distortion of research sponsored by private companies; human embryonic stem cell research; cloning; and the patenting of DNA and cell lines—illustrate the importance of ethics in scientific research. This book provides an introduction and overview of many of the social, ethical, and legal issues facing scientists today. The book includes chapters on research misconduct, conflicts of interest, data management, mentoring, authorship, peer review, publication, intellectual property, research with human subjects, research with animal subjects, genetic and stem cell research, international research, and ethical decision making. The book also features dozens of real and hypothetical cases for discussion and analysis and introduces the reader to important research regulations and guidelines. Now in its second edition, this book synthesizes the diverse talents and experiences. This second edition of this book includes new chapters and cases and has been brought up to date on the latest issues and problems in research ethics.Less
Recent scandals and controversies—such as the falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism of data in federally funded science; the manipulation and distortion of research sponsored by private companies; human embryonic stem cell research; cloning; and the patenting of DNA and cell lines—illustrate the importance of ethics in scientific research. This book provides an introduction and overview of many of the social, ethical, and legal issues facing scientists today. The book includes chapters on research misconduct, conflicts of interest, data management, mentoring, authorship, peer review, publication, intellectual property, research with human subjects, research with animal subjects, genetic and stem cell research, international research, and ethical decision making. The book also features dozens of real and hypothetical cases for discussion and analysis and introduces the reader to important research regulations and guidelines. Now in its second edition, this book synthesizes the diverse talents and experiences. This second edition of this book includes new chapters and cases and has been brought up to date on the latest issues and problems in research ethics.
Margaret P. Battin, Leslie P. Francis, Jay A. Jacobson, and Charles B. Smith
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195335842
- eISBN:
- 9780199868926
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195335842.003.0010
- Subject:
- Philosophy, General
Research ethics has focused on protecting the autonomy of the individual research subject, insisting on informed consent and a reasonable risk/benefit ratio for a study to be ethical. At the same ...
More
Research ethics has focused on protecting the autonomy of the individual research subject, insisting on informed consent and a reasonable risk/benefit ratio for a study to be ethical. At the same time, it has largely ignored the situation of the “indirect participant” in research: someone who might be adversely affected by another's participation in a research study. There are many historical examples of this failure: self-experimentation with infectious disease, the Tuskegee syphilis study, and the Willowbrook study of infectious hepatitis, among others. And there are many more contemporary examples, too, such as tests of the oral polio vaccine or of short-course anti-retroviral therapy for HIV+ pregnant women. This chapter argues that risks to indirect participants must be considered in assessing the risk/benefit ratio of study designs. Where there are identifiable indirect participants and risks to them are significant, their informed consent should also be required for participation of the direct subject in research. Where indirect participants cannot easily be identified, but risks may be substantial, the chapter suggest employing models drawn from community consent to conduct of research.Less
Research ethics has focused on protecting the autonomy of the individual research subject, insisting on informed consent and a reasonable risk/benefit ratio for a study to be ethical. At the same time, it has largely ignored the situation of the “indirect participant” in research: someone who might be adversely affected by another's participation in a research study. There are many historical examples of this failure: self-experimentation with infectious disease, the Tuskegee syphilis study, and the Willowbrook study of infectious hepatitis, among others. And there are many more contemporary examples, too, such as tests of the oral polio vaccine or of short-course anti-retroviral therapy for HIV+ pregnant women. This chapter argues that risks to indirect participants must be considered in assessing the risk/benefit ratio of study designs. Where there are identifiable indirect participants and risks to them are significant, their informed consent should also be required for participation of the direct subject in research. Where indirect participants cannot easily be identified, but risks may be substantial, the chapter suggest employing models drawn from community consent to conduct of research.
Kevin C. Elliott
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199755622
- eISBN:
- 9780199827121
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755622.003.0006
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter argues that, if scientists are to avoid railroading their own values into individual and societal decision‐making processes, they need to follow an ethics of expertise (EOE) when ...
More
This chapter argues that, if scientists are to avoid railroading their own values into individual and societal decision‐making processes, they need to follow an ethics of expertise (EOE) when disseminating information. The chapter suggests that an EOE based on the principle of informed consent would help decision makers to formulate choices based on their own values and priorities, and it would also help them to evaluate the trustworthiness of various experts. On the basis of this principle, it advises proponents of hormesis to be as explicit as possible in acknowledging the major and controversial value judgments present in their work. Two of these crucial judgments are that hormesis is the predominant toxicological dose‐response relationship and that it should be the default dose‐response model in risk assessment. Clarifying these judgments would help decision makers to recognize the key sources of uncertainty and controversy in the information supplied to them, and it would prevent interest groups from misusing the claims of hormesis proponents.Less
This chapter argues that, if scientists are to avoid railroading their own values into individual and societal decision‐making processes, they need to follow an ethics of expertise (EOE) when disseminating information. The chapter suggests that an EOE based on the principle of informed consent would help decision makers to formulate choices based on their own values and priorities, and it would also help them to evaluate the trustworthiness of various experts. On the basis of this principle, it advises proponents of hormesis to be as explicit as possible in acknowledging the major and controversial value judgments present in their work. Two of these crucial judgments are that hormesis is the predominant toxicological dose‐response relationship and that it should be the default dose‐response model in risk assessment. Clarifying these judgments would help decision makers to recognize the key sources of uncertainty and controversy in the information supplied to them, and it would prevent interest groups from misusing the claims of hormesis proponents.
Kevin C. Elliott
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199755622
- eISBN:
- 9780199827121
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755622.003.0003
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter argues that nonepistemic or contextual values should not be systematically excluded from any of the four categories of value judgments considered in Chapter 2. The argument rests on ...
More
This chapter argues that nonepistemic or contextual values should not be systematically excluded from any of the four categories of value judgments considered in Chapter 2. The argument rests on three major principles. First, the “ethics” principle is that scientists have ethical responsibilities to consider the major societal consequences of their work and to take reasonable steps to mitigate harmful effects that it might have. Second, the “uncertainty” principle is that those who are researching policy‐relevant topics often face situations in which scientific information is uncertain and incomplete, and they have to decide what standard of proof to demand before drawing conclusions. Third, the “no‐passing‐the‐buck” principle states that it is frequently socially harmful or impracticable for scientists to respond to uncertainty by completely withholding their judgment or providing uninterpreted data to decision makers. Based on this third principle, scientists cannot always leave difficult value judgments about interpreting uncertain evidence up to policy makers. Therefore, there are sometimes ethical reasons for scientists to factor societal considerations into their responses to uncertainty even when they address judgments about choosing scientific language or interpreting evidence. The upshot of this chapter is that administrators and policy makers need to find ways to limit the influences of powerful interest groups without naively trying to seal scientific research off from all societal influences and considerations.Less
This chapter argues that nonepistemic or contextual values should not be systematically excluded from any of the four categories of value judgments considered in Chapter 2. The argument rests on three major principles. First, the “ethics” principle is that scientists have ethical responsibilities to consider the major societal consequences of their work and to take reasonable steps to mitigate harmful effects that it might have. Second, the “uncertainty” principle is that those who are researching policy‐relevant topics often face situations in which scientific information is uncertain and incomplete, and they have to decide what standard of proof to demand before drawing conclusions. Third, the “no‐passing‐the‐buck” principle states that it is frequently socially harmful or impracticable for scientists to respond to uncertainty by completely withholding their judgment or providing uninterpreted data to decision makers. Based on this third principle, scientists cannot always leave difficult value judgments about interpreting uncertain evidence up to policy makers. Therefore, there are sometimes ethical reasons for scientists to factor societal considerations into their responses to uncertainty even when they address judgments about choosing scientific language or interpreting evidence. The upshot of this chapter is that administrators and policy makers need to find ways to limit the influences of powerful interest groups without naively trying to seal scientific research off from all societal influences and considerations.
Kevin C. Elliott
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199755622
- eISBN:
- 9780199827121
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755622.003.0007
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter shows how the major lessons of the preceding chapters apply to cases of policy‐relevant research other than hormesis. It argues that those who investigate endocrine disruption and ...
More
This chapter shows how the major lessons of the preceding chapters apply to cases of policy‐relevant research other than hormesis. It argues that those who investigate endocrine disruption and multiple chemical sensitivity also encounter at least four major categories of value judgments: (1) choices about what topics to investigate and how to design studies; (2) decisions about what scientific terminology and definitions to employ; (3) choices about how to interpret and evaluate studies; and (4) questions about how to incorporate scientific research into policy decisions. The chapter also shows, in accordance with Chapter 4, that current university conflict‐of‐interest policies are unlikely to prevent interest groups from exerting powerful influences on these judgments. Chapter 7 also supports the central contention of Chapter 5 (i.e., that diagnosing deliberative forums is important) by showing the problematic effects of poorly designed deliberation in the MCS case and the positive consequences of well‐designed deliberation in response to endocrine disruption. Finally, the chapter shows that experts who study MCS and endocrine disruption could also gain valuable guidance by reflecting on the ethics of expertise developed in Chapter 6.Less
This chapter shows how the major lessons of the preceding chapters apply to cases of policy‐relevant research other than hormesis. It argues that those who investigate endocrine disruption and multiple chemical sensitivity also encounter at least four major categories of value judgments: (1) choices about what topics to investigate and how to design studies; (2) decisions about what scientific terminology and definitions to employ; (3) choices about how to interpret and evaluate studies; and (4) questions about how to incorporate scientific research into policy decisions. The chapter also shows, in accordance with Chapter 4, that current university conflict‐of‐interest policies are unlikely to prevent interest groups from exerting powerful influences on these judgments. Chapter 7 also supports the central contention of Chapter 5 (i.e., that diagnosing deliberative forums is important) by showing the problematic effects of poorly designed deliberation in the MCS case and the positive consequences of well‐designed deliberation in response to endocrine disruption. Finally, the chapter shows that experts who study MCS and endocrine disruption could also gain valuable guidance by reflecting on the ethics of expertise developed in Chapter 6.
Peter Speck
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- November 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198530251
- eISBN:
- 9780191729980
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198530251.003.0017
- Subject:
- Palliative Care, Palliative Medicine Research, Patient Care and End-of-Life Decision Making
This chapter gives advice on how to obtain research ethics approval. It begins with an introduction to the UK Research Ethics Committees, which was started in 1968 and is now responsible for ...
More
This chapter gives advice on how to obtain research ethics approval. It begins with an introduction to the UK Research Ethics Committees, which was started in 1968 and is now responsible for scrutinizing all research undertaken within the NHS.Less
This chapter gives advice on how to obtain research ethics approval. It begins with an introduction to the UK Research Ethics Committees, which was started in 1968 and is now responsible for scrutinizing all research undertaken within the NHS.
Ralph Schroeder
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780195371284
- eISBN:
- 9780199865000
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195371284.003.0008
- Subject:
- Psychology, Human-Technology Interaction
The use of multi-user virtual environments for social research raises a variety of ethical issues. Among these are the conditions under which interactions should be recorded and how information can ...
More
The use of multi-user virtual environments for social research raises a variety of ethical issues. Among these are the conditions under which interactions should be recorded and how information can be anonymized. One experiment that tested the limits of research ethics was a replication of the Milgram experiments, which raises the question of how people may treat avatars as real people, and how this points to limits of the research that should be undertaken. Apart from the ethics of research, there are also ethical and social issues for the uses of multi-user virtual environments, which include the ownership of avatar bodies and objects in virtual worlds, and whether bodies and objects persist and can be carried over from one virtual environment into another.Less
The use of multi-user virtual environments for social research raises a variety of ethical issues. Among these are the conditions under which interactions should be recorded and how information can be anonymized. One experiment that tested the limits of research ethics was a replication of the Milgram experiments, which raises the question of how people may treat avatars as real people, and how this points to limits of the research that should be undertaken. Apart from the ethics of research, there are also ethical and social issues for the uses of multi-user virtual environments, which include the ownership of avatar bodies and objects in virtual worlds, and whether bodies and objects persist and can be carried over from one virtual environment into another.
Kevin C. Elliott
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199755622
- eISBN:
- 9780199827121
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755622.003.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter provides an overview of the book and a summary of each subsequent chapter. It highlights the volume's two major goals: to examine the range of methodological decisions and interpretive ...
More
This chapter provides an overview of the book and a summary of each subsequent chapter. It highlights the volume's two major goals: to examine the range of methodological decisions and interpretive judgments that permeate policy‐relevant scientific research and to explore ways of making these choices more responsive to a range of public values (in addition to those of deep pockets, which have abundant resources to spend on research). It also introduces readers to the book's central case study, hormesis, which involves seemingly beneficial effects produced by low doses of substances that are normally toxic. Chapters 2 and 3 perform two preliminary tasks: (1) They clarify the major categories of value judgments that contribute to differing evaluations of the generalizability and regulatory implications of hormesis; and (2) they argue that societal values should not be completely excluded from influencing any of these categories of judgments. Chapters 4 through 6 develop the book's three primary lessons, corresponding to the three “bodies” that Sheila Jasanoff emphasizes as central to obtaining trustworthy public‐policy guidance from scientific experts. These lessons concern how to safeguard the body of scientific knowledge from interest groups, how to ascertain the best advisory bodies for guiding policy makers and directing the course of future research, and how to provide the bodies of experts themselves with an ethics of expertise. Chapter 7 argues that the lessons drawn in chapters 2 through 6 are applicable not only to the hormesis case but also to other areas of policy‐relevant research, such as endocrine disruption and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).Less
This chapter provides an overview of the book and a summary of each subsequent chapter. It highlights the volume's two major goals: to examine the range of methodological decisions and interpretive judgments that permeate policy‐relevant scientific research and to explore ways of making these choices more responsive to a range of public values (in addition to those of deep pockets, which have abundant resources to spend on research). It also introduces readers to the book's central case study, hormesis, which involves seemingly beneficial effects produced by low doses of substances that are normally toxic. Chapters 2 and 3 perform two preliminary tasks: (1) They clarify the major categories of value judgments that contribute to differing evaluations of the generalizability and regulatory implications of hormesis; and (2) they argue that societal values should not be completely excluded from influencing any of these categories of judgments. Chapters 4 through 6 develop the book's three primary lessons, corresponding to the three “bodies” that Sheila Jasanoff emphasizes as central to obtaining trustworthy public‐policy guidance from scientific experts. These lessons concern how to safeguard the body of scientific knowledge from interest groups, how to ascertain the best advisory bodies for guiding policy makers and directing the course of future research, and how to provide the bodies of experts themselves with an ethics of expertise. Chapter 7 argues that the lessons drawn in chapters 2 through 6 are applicable not only to the hormesis case but also to other areas of policy‐relevant research, such as endocrine disruption and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).
Kevin C. Elliott
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199755622
- eISBN:
- 9780199827121
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755622.003.0008
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This final chapter reviews the book's major claims and considers important directions for future scholarship. The analyses in the preceding chapters suggest at least three promising avenues for ...
More
This final chapter reviews the book's major claims and considers important directions for future scholarship. The analyses in the preceding chapters suggest at least three promising avenues for future work: (1) further philosophical studies of the roles that various sorts of values should play in scientific research; (2) new scientific investigations of the biological effects of toxicants at low doses; and (3) ongoing social‐scientific research on how to incorporate a representative range of societal values in science. Regarding the role of values in science, leading philosophers of science disagree both about the extent to which scientific theory choice is underdetermined by epistemic values and about the conditions under which nonepistemic values should be employed in resolving this underdetermination. Related questions include whether the conceptual distinction between epistemic and nonepistemic values holds up to critical scrutiny and whether it is possible to draw a convincing distinction between practical decisions about how to act and epistemic judgments about what to believe. Regarding new scientific investigations, it is probably more important in the near future for scientific research to focus on hazards like endocrine disruption and toxic‐chemical mixtures than on hormesis, especially because sensitive populations like children are probably already exposed to mixtures of toxicants at levels above the hormetic dose range. Nevertheless, hormesis research may still be valuable in some fields, such as pharmaceutical development. Finally, with respect to social‐science research, it would be helpful to develop new strategies for addressing conflicts of interest, new research on the sorts of deliberative mechanisms that are effective in particular contexts, and further studies on how to effectively disseminate scientific information to its recipients.Less
This final chapter reviews the book's major claims and considers important directions for future scholarship. The analyses in the preceding chapters suggest at least three promising avenues for future work: (1) further philosophical studies of the roles that various sorts of values should play in scientific research; (2) new scientific investigations of the biological effects of toxicants at low doses; and (3) ongoing social‐scientific research on how to incorporate a representative range of societal values in science. Regarding the role of values in science, leading philosophers of science disagree both about the extent to which scientific theory choice is underdetermined by epistemic values and about the conditions under which nonepistemic values should be employed in resolving this underdetermination. Related questions include whether the conceptual distinction between epistemic and nonepistemic values holds up to critical scrutiny and whether it is possible to draw a convincing distinction between practical decisions about how to act and epistemic judgments about what to believe. Regarding new scientific investigations, it is probably more important in the near future for scientific research to focus on hazards like endocrine disruption and toxic‐chemical mixtures than on hormesis, especially because sensitive populations like children are probably already exposed to mixtures of toxicants at levels above the hormetic dose range. Nevertheless, hormesis research may still be valuable in some fields, such as pharmaceutical development. Finally, with respect to social‐science research, it would be helpful to develop new strategies for addressing conflicts of interest, new research on the sorts of deliberative mechanisms that are effective in particular contexts, and further studies on how to effectively disseminate scientific information to its recipients.
Carl E. Schneider
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262028912
- eISBN:
- 9780262328784
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262028912.003.0004
- Subject:
- Biology, Bioethics
Good regulation comes from good guidance. IRBs need a coherent and legible ethics but get three principles – respect for persons, justice, and beneficence. A workable ethics is unachievable because ...
More
Good regulation comes from good guidance. IRBs need a coherent and legible ethics but get three principles – respect for persons, justice, and beneficence. A workable ethics is unachievable because IRBs regulate too many diverse areas. And such an attempt would encounter a core contradiction: IRB ethics privilege the autonomy principle, but IRBs are “deeply and pervasively paternalistic,” for they tell people whether and how they may participate in research. Yet research subjects are just as competent to make choices as patients contemplating surgery, homeowners choosing a mortgage, or skiers picking a resort. Although IRBs lack a legible ethics, they have a potent ethos. Instead of showing that IRBs’ usefulness, that ethos recites a litany of research scandals. But scandals are evils, not arguments.Less
Good regulation comes from good guidance. IRBs need a coherent and legible ethics but get three principles – respect for persons, justice, and beneficence. A workable ethics is unachievable because IRBs regulate too many diverse areas. And such an attempt would encounter a core contradiction: IRB ethics privilege the autonomy principle, but IRBs are “deeply and pervasively paternalistic,” for they tell people whether and how they may participate in research. Yet research subjects are just as competent to make choices as patients contemplating surgery, homeowners choosing a mortgage, or skiers picking a resort. Although IRBs lack a legible ethics, they have a potent ethos. Instead of showing that IRBs’ usefulness, that ethos recites a litany of research scandals. But scandals are evils, not arguments.
Kevin C. Elliott
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199755622
- eISBN:
- 9780199827121
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755622.003.0004
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter argues that current financial conflict‐of‐interest (COI) policies are severely limited in their ability to prevent powerful interest groups from hijacking university research. It ...
More
This chapter argues that current financial conflict‐of‐interest (COI) policies are severely limited in their ability to prevent powerful interest groups from hijacking university research. It considers the three major elements of these policies (i.e., elimination of conflicts, disclosure, and management) and argues that none of them is likely to be both effective and practical. Given the current economic emphasis on creating links between universities and industry, outright elimination of conflicts will generally not be feasible. Moreover, despite the popularity of disclosure policies, psychologists warn that those who receive information about conflicts are often unable to employ that information effectively. By highlighting the wide array of value judgments that permeate scientific practice, this book strengthens these psychological arguments by highlighting how difficult it would be for the recipients of information to estimate how financial conflicts might be influencing such a diverse array of judgments. Finally, the prevalence of these judgments makes it unlikely that management committees could prevent questionable influences on science without instituting an unreasonable amount of bureaucratic oversight. Chapter 4 suggests that, instead of depending only on COI policies, university administrators and policy makers would do well to consider at least five additional options. These include providing more funding for independent research, preventing particularly egregious institutional conflicts, creating trial registries, and developing both adversarial and consensual deliberative forums.Less
This chapter argues that current financial conflict‐of‐interest (COI) policies are severely limited in their ability to prevent powerful interest groups from hijacking university research. It considers the three major elements of these policies (i.e., elimination of conflicts, disclosure, and management) and argues that none of them is likely to be both effective and practical. Given the current economic emphasis on creating links between universities and industry, outright elimination of conflicts will generally not be feasible. Moreover, despite the popularity of disclosure policies, psychologists warn that those who receive information about conflicts are often unable to employ that information effectively. By highlighting the wide array of value judgments that permeate scientific practice, this book strengthens these psychological arguments by highlighting how difficult it would be for the recipients of information to estimate how financial conflicts might be influencing such a diverse array of judgments. Finally, the prevalence of these judgments makes it unlikely that management committees could prevent questionable influences on science without instituting an unreasonable amount of bureaucratic oversight. Chapter 4 suggests that, instead of depending only on COI policies, university administrators and policy makers would do well to consider at least five additional options. These include providing more funding for independent research, preventing particularly egregious institutional conflicts, creating trial registries, and developing both adversarial and consensual deliberative forums.
Marie Smyth and Catherine Bond (eds)
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- March 2012
- ISBN:
- 9781861345141
- eISBN:
- 9781447303220
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Policy Press
- DOI:
- 10.1332/policypress/9781861345141.001.0001
- Subject:
- Sociology, Social Research and Statistics
This book examines the role of participants in research, and how research ethics can be put into practice. Specifically, the book discusses the ethical regulations and guidance governing researchers ...
More
This book examines the role of participants in research, and how research ethics can be put into practice. Specifically, the book discusses the ethical regulations and guidance governing researchers in different disciplines, analyses case studies of innovative research projects where ethics have been central to the researcher-subject relationship, assesses the impact of ethics on research methods and approaches, provides useful comparisons of research conducted by professionals and service-users, and offers a unique insight into research participants' perspectives, which are so often absent in discussions of research ethics.Less
This book examines the role of participants in research, and how research ethics can be put into practice. Specifically, the book discusses the ethical regulations and guidance governing researchers in different disciplines, analyses case studies of innovative research projects where ethics have been central to the researcher-subject relationship, assesses the impact of ethics on research methods and approaches, provides useful comparisons of research conducted by professionals and service-users, and offers a unique insight into research participants' perspectives, which are so often absent in discussions of research ethics.
Henry S. Richardson
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- January 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780195388930
- eISBN:
- 9780199979196
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388930.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
Interacting innocently with others, we can become morally entangled with their affairs, despite neither party having intended this. This route to obligation—underexplored by moral philosophers—is of ...
More
Interacting innocently with others, we can become morally entangled with their affairs, despite neither party having intended this. This route to obligation—underexplored by moral philosophers—is of great practical importance to those engaged in medical research on human subjects. Medical researchers encounter all sorts of medical needs in their human subjects. Malaria researchers working in rural Africa may encounter malaria, schistosomiasis, HIV, and other diseases. Brain-scan studies in high-tech research hospitals may reveal suspicious anomalies in the brains of normal volunteers. These subjects may need ancillary care from the researchers: medical care not required to carry out the study safely and soundly. Currently, no authoritative ethical guidance covers such situations. This book’s author’s partial-entrustment model has been the leading principled account of medical researchers’ ancillary-care obligations. Here, this book buttresses and extends this model, newly explaining how these obligations arise as moral entanglements to which researchers open themselves by accepting special permissions to examine study participants’ bodies, collect their bodily fluids and tissues, and probe their medical histories. In addition to providing a full-dress philosophical defense for the partial-entrustment model, this book addresses the most important concrete and practical issues that arise regarding ancillary care, including justice, exploitation, waivability, and prioritization. The book closes by noting issues needing further exploration, broader philosophical implications, and practical steps we can take now.Less
Interacting innocently with others, we can become morally entangled with their affairs, despite neither party having intended this. This route to obligation—underexplored by moral philosophers—is of great practical importance to those engaged in medical research on human subjects. Medical researchers encounter all sorts of medical needs in their human subjects. Malaria researchers working in rural Africa may encounter malaria, schistosomiasis, HIV, and other diseases. Brain-scan studies in high-tech research hospitals may reveal suspicious anomalies in the brains of normal volunteers. These subjects may need ancillary care from the researchers: medical care not required to carry out the study safely and soundly. Currently, no authoritative ethical guidance covers such situations. This book’s author’s partial-entrustment model has been the leading principled account of medical researchers’ ancillary-care obligations. Here, this book buttresses and extends this model, newly explaining how these obligations arise as moral entanglements to which researchers open themselves by accepting special permissions to examine study participants’ bodies, collect their bodily fluids and tissues, and probe their medical histories. In addition to providing a full-dress philosophical defense for the partial-entrustment model, this book addresses the most important concrete and practical issues that arise regarding ancillary care, including justice, exploitation, waivability, and prioritization. The book closes by noting issues needing further exploration, broader philosophical implications, and practical steps we can take now.
Wendy Rogers
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199316649
- eISBN:
- 9780199346431
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316649.003.0003
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Feminist Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
Vulnerability is a key concept in bioethics. Research ethics guidelines mandate the protection of vulnerable participants; the principles of clinical ethics are underpinned by the vulnerability of ...
More
Vulnerability is a key concept in bioethics. Research ethics guidelines mandate the protection of vulnerable participants; the principles of clinical ethics are underpinned by the vulnerability of ill health; and public health ethics is concerned with the health inequities experienced by vulnerable populations. In these different areas of bioethics, the concept of vulnerability is used in two ways. Vulnerability is understood either to be a universal ontological condition of human existence, or to be associated with contextual factors, signifying increased risk of harms for particular individuals or groups. This essay shows how lack of conceptual clarity about vulnerability leads to confusion about who the vulnerable are and what duties are owed them in the areas of health care, research and public health. The essay argues that greater clarity concerning the concept of vulnerability will not only make a contribution to bioethics, but also to an ethics of vulnerability more generally.Less
Vulnerability is a key concept in bioethics. Research ethics guidelines mandate the protection of vulnerable participants; the principles of clinical ethics are underpinned by the vulnerability of ill health; and public health ethics is concerned with the health inequities experienced by vulnerable populations. In these different areas of bioethics, the concept of vulnerability is used in two ways. Vulnerability is understood either to be a universal ontological condition of human existence, or to be associated with contextual factors, signifying increased risk of harms for particular individuals or groups. This essay shows how lack of conceptual clarity about vulnerability leads to confusion about who the vulnerable are and what duties are owed them in the areas of health care, research and public health. The essay argues that greater clarity concerning the concept of vulnerability will not only make a contribution to bioethics, but also to an ethics of vulnerability more generally.
