Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0003
A. London
This chapter explores tensions in research ethics between three moral pitfalls: sanctioning wrongdoing, avoiding the ravages of neglect, and not saddling a narrow range of actors with overly demanding moral requirements. These tensions are illustrated by the way an argument from Alan Wertheimer repurposes core commitments of the field to argue that research ethics should avert the harms of widespread neglect by weakening some of the protectionist demands of morality and permitting the violation of norms against exploitation, unfairness, and injustice. Although Wertheimer’s proposal is likely to be met with skepticism in the field, the problems it raises reflect shortcomings in research ethics and, most importantly, the failure of the field to connect this activity to social institutions that serve a larger moral purpose.
{"title":"The Anvil of Neglect and the Hammer of Exploitation","authors":"A. London","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores tensions in research ethics between three moral pitfalls: sanctioning wrongdoing, avoiding the ravages of neglect, and not saddling a narrow range of actors with overly demanding moral requirements. These tensions are illustrated by the way an argument from Alan Wertheimer repurposes core commitments of the field to argue that research ethics should avert the harms of widespread neglect by weakening some of the protectionist demands of morality and permitting the violation of norms against exploitation, unfairness, and injustice. Although Wertheimer’s proposal is likely to be met with skepticism in the field, the problems it raises reflect shortcomings in research ethics and, most importantly, the failure of the field to connect this activity to social institutions that serve a larger moral purpose.","PeriodicalId":243716,"journal":{"name":"For the Common Good","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115360797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0006
A. London
This chapter articulates the integrative approach to assessing and managing risk in research. This framework is grounded, not in role-related obligations, but in respect for the basic interests of persons. It models uncertainty as a property of a moderately idealized community of diverse experts, and it shows how studies that are designed to reduce conflict or uncertainty within such a community can reconcile the production of socially valuable information with respect for the status of research participants as free and equal. The merits of this approach relative to prominent alternatives, including component analysis, clinical equipoise, the non-exploitation view and the net risk view are elaborated at length. The merits off the integrative approach are demonstrated by showing how this framework allows trial that use response adaptive randomization to be designed in ways that respect a principle of equal concern and a series of related ethical requirements.
{"title":"The Integrative Approach to Assessing and Managing Risk","authors":"A. London","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter articulates the integrative approach to assessing and managing risk in research. This framework is grounded, not in role-related obligations, but in respect for the basic interests of persons. It models uncertainty as a property of a moderately idealized community of diverse experts, and it shows how studies that are designed to reduce conflict or uncertainty within such a community can reconcile the production of socially valuable information with respect for the status of research participants as free and equal. The merits of this approach relative to prominent alternatives, including component analysis, clinical equipoise, the non-exploitation view and the net risk view are elaborated at length. The merits off the integrative approach are demonstrated by showing how this framework allows trial that use response adaptive randomization to be designed in ways that respect a principle of equal concern and a series of related ethical requirements.","PeriodicalId":243716,"journal":{"name":"For the Common Good","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131794366","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0002
A. London
This chapter traces the practical and conceptual origins of eight problematic commitments including the perception that there is an inherent moral dilemma at the heart of research with humans and the tendency to conceptualize research as a private transaction between researchers and participants without clear connections to the requirements of a just social order. It introduces readers who are new to research ethics to key cases and documents relating to domestic and international research and illustrates how they gave rise to the problematic views that produce conceptual and practical tensions in the field. The chapter frames the questions that will be addressed in subsequent chapters, including issues about research risk; the role of paternalism in research ethics; and requirements relating to responsiveness to host community health needs, the standard of care, and post-trial access in international research.
{"title":"Fear of the Common Good and the Neglect of Justice","authors":"A. London","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter traces the practical and conceptual origins of eight problematic commitments including the perception that there is an inherent moral dilemma at the heart of research with humans and the tendency to conceptualize research as a private transaction between researchers and participants without clear connections to the requirements of a just social order. It introduces readers who are new to research ethics to key cases and documents relating to domestic and international research and illustrates how they gave rise to the problematic views that produce conceptual and practical tensions in the field. The chapter frames the questions that will be addressed in subsequent chapters, including issues about research risk; the role of paternalism in research ethics; and requirements relating to responsiveness to host community health needs, the standard of care, and post-trial access in international research.","PeriodicalId":243716,"journal":{"name":"For the Common Good","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134290369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0004
A. London
This chapter distinguishes two conceptions of the common good and argues that reluctance to embrace a research imperative grounded in the corporate conception of the common good is sound. In contrast, it is argued that the basic or generic interest conception of the common good grounds an imperative with two requirements: to carry out research that produces the information necessary to enable a community’s basic social systems to efficiently and equitably advance the basic interests of its members and to ensure that this activity is organized as a voluntary scheme of social cooperation that respects the moral claim of its constituent members to be treated as free and equal. A central claim of this chapter is that an imperative to improve the capacity of social institutions to secure the interests of community members can be reconciled with fundamental moral respect for the status of the individuals who make such progress possible.
{"title":"The Common Good and the Egalitarian Research Imperative","authors":"A. London","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter distinguishes two conceptions of the common good and argues that reluctance to embrace a research imperative grounded in the corporate conception of the common good is sound. In contrast, it is argued that the basic or generic interest conception of the common good grounds an imperative with two requirements: to carry out research that produces the information necessary to enable a community’s basic social systems to efficiently and equitably advance the basic interests of its members and to ensure that this activity is organized as a voluntary scheme of social cooperation that respects the moral claim of its constituent members to be treated as free and equal. A central claim of this chapter is that an imperative to improve the capacity of social institutions to secure the interests of community members can be reconciled with fundamental moral respect for the status of the individuals who make such progress possible.","PeriodicalId":243716,"journal":{"name":"For the Common Good","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128156609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0008
A. London
Although the principle of justice plays a peripheral role in domestic research in high-income countries, it grounds a series of requirements in international research relating to responsiveness to host community health needs, the standard of care, and assurances of post-trial access. This chapter reviews a proposal to eliminate what is seen as a cumbersome mix of requirements on international research in favor of a framework of procedures that render considerations of fairness more manageable within the confines of orthodox research ethics. This might appear to be an alternative to the approach defended in this book because it would avoid having to engage with difficult issues of justice that reach beyond the confines of the field as it is currently configured. This chapter argues that efforts to avoid substantive conceptions of justice wind up tacitly enforcing a particular conception of justice, and it is shown that the proposal to streamline the ethics of international research cannot satisfy some of the requirements that its proponents advocate.
{"title":"Avoiding Justice: Research at the Auction Block","authors":"A. London","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Although the principle of justice plays a peripheral role in domestic research in high-income countries, it grounds a series of requirements in international research relating to responsiveness to host community health needs, the standard of care, and assurances of post-trial access. This chapter reviews a proposal to eliminate what is seen as a cumbersome mix of requirements on international research in favor of a framework of procedures that render considerations of fairness more manageable within the confines of orthodox research ethics. This might appear to be an alternative to the approach defended in this book because it would avoid having to engage with difficult issues of justice that reach beyond the confines of the field as it is currently configured. This chapter argues that efforts to avoid substantive conceptions of justice wind up tacitly enforcing a particular conception of justice, and it is shown that the proposal to streamline the ethics of international research cannot satisfy some of the requirements that its proponents advocate.","PeriodicalId":243716,"journal":{"name":"For the Common Good","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126240266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0005
A. London
This chapter reviews a series of arguments that purport to show that there is an inherent moral dilemma in research with humans and that this conflict produces a corresponding social dilemma, known as the prisoner’s dilemma. If these arguments are sound, it would show that dual requirements of the egalitarian research imperative outlined in chapter 4 cannot be satisfied in practice. This chapter argues that these arguments fail and that their intuitive force in this area is bolstered by two dogmas of research ethics: the claim that the ethical norms in this area derive from the role-related obligations of medical professionals and the claim that research is an inherently utilitarian undertaking. This chapter demonstrates that rejecting those dogmas creates a space for reconciling the production of socially valuable information with respect for research participants as free and equal.
{"title":"Two Dogmas of Research Ethics","authors":"A. London","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter reviews a series of arguments that purport to show that there is an inherent moral dilemma in research with humans and that this conflict produces a corresponding social dilemma, known as the prisoner’s dilemma. If these arguments are sound, it would show that dual requirements of the egalitarian research imperative outlined in chapter 4 cannot be satisfied in practice. This chapter argues that these arguments fail and that their intuitive force in this area is bolstered by two dogmas of research ethics: the claim that the ethical norms in this area derive from the role-related obligations of medical professionals and the claim that research is an inherently utilitarian undertaking. This chapter demonstrates that rejecting those dogmas creates a space for reconciling the production of socially valuable information with respect for research participants as free and equal.","PeriodicalId":243716,"journal":{"name":"For the Common Good","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114630956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-31DOI: 10.7591/9781501723544-003
{"title":"Abbreviations","authors":"","doi":"10.7591/9781501723544-003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501723544-003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":243716,"journal":{"name":"For the Common Good","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114662592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-31DOI: 10.7591/9781501723544-012
{"title":"Conclusion","authors":"","doi":"10.7591/9781501723544-012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501723544-012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":243716,"journal":{"name":"For the Common Good","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123517194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-31DOI: 10.7591/9781501723544-015
{"title":"Appendix 3. Officers in the Confratemity of Master Shoemakers","authors":"","doi":"10.7591/9781501723544-015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501723544-015","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":243716,"journal":{"name":"For the Common Good","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126230955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-31DOI: 10.7591/9781501723544-009
{"title":"6. Demand for Justice","authors":"","doi":"10.7591/9781501723544-009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501723544-009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":243716,"journal":{"name":"For the Common Good","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131184721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：