Human and Animal Subjects of Research: The Moral Significance of Respect versus Welfare

Human beings with diminished decision-making capacities are usually thought to require greater protections from the potential harms of research than fully autonomous persons. Animal subjects of research receive lesser protections than any human beings regardless of decision-making capacity. Paradoxically, however, it is precisely animals’ lack of some characteristic human capacities that is commonly invoked to justify using them for human purposes. In other words, for humans lesser capacities correspond to greater protections but for animals the opposite is true. Without explicit justification, it is not clear why or whether this should be the case. Ethics regulations guiding human subject research include principles such as respect for persons—and related duties—that are required as a matter of justice while regulations guiding animal subject research attend only to highly circumscribed considerations of welfare. Further, the regulations guiding research on animals discount any consideration of animal welfare relative to comparable human welfare. This paper explores two of the most promising justifications for these differences␣between the two sets of regulations. The first potential justification points to lesser moral status for animals on the basis of their lesser capacities. The second potential justification relies on a claim about the permissibility of moral partiality as␣found in common morality. While neither potential justification is sufficient to justify the regulatory difference as it stands, there is possible common ground between supporters of some regulatory difference and those rejecting the current difference.     

Children and Parents as Members of the Research Team: Fair Employment Practices Without a Union Contract

In clinical mental health research with children, both child and parent are essential members of the research team. The 3 R's of parent/child team membership are respect, rapport, and recognition. Respect and recognition include fair reimbursement for time, expense, and inconvenience, but the most important compensation for many families is the appreciation of the other team members for their sacrifice and cooperation. Reimbursement, although honoring the principles of justice and respect for persons, raises difficult issues about appropriate amount, particularly in research involving children. The 3 R's are supported by the investigator 5 A's: attitude, adaptability, availability, attachment, and appreciation. Although the principles seem clear in the abstract, implementation encounters many practical problems. Perhaps the most difficult of these is determining the appropriate amount of compensation that avoids undue inducement but not at the expense of the 3 R's and 5 A's.     

儿童心理健康发展的家庭生态系统特点研究

通过元分析及变量频数分析技术完成影响儿童心理发展的家庭生态系统关键变量的筛选,运用生态系统发展观,对746名中小学生的家庭生态系统进行了研究。分别从差异模式、关系模式和系统结构模式对健康组和问题组儿童的家庭各子系统关键因素之间的差异,子系统关键因素间、子系统间的关系,以及整体生态系统的特点进行分析,考察了儿童心理健康发展的家庭生态系统特点。     

On the Limits of Parental Proxy Consent: Children's Right to Non-Participation in Non-Therapeutic Research

This paper considers what are the appropriate limits of parental or guardian proxy consent for a child's participation in medical or social science research. Such proxy consent, it is proposed, is invalid in regards “non-therapeutic research.” The latter research may add to scientific knowledge and/or benefit others, but any benefit to the child research participant is but a coincidental theoretical possibility and not a primary objective. Research involving children, without intended and acceptable prospect of beneficial outcome to the individual participant, even if with negligible risk, does not meet the test for “best interests.” Proxy consent for children's involvement in research is justifiable only when given for and on behalf of the child in his or her best interest to enhance the child's well-being. Only in the latter case is the parental proxy consent situation analogous in regards key criteria to a competent individual consenting to research participation. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Assent and Dissent: Ethical Considerations in Research With Toddlers

In accordance with ethical principles and standards, researchers conducting studies with children are expected to seek assent and respect their dissent from participation. Little attention has been given to assent and dissent in research with toddlers, who have limited cognitive and emotional capabilities. We discuss research with toddlers in the context of assent and dissent and propose guidelines to ensure that research with toddlers still adheres to ethical principles. These guidelines include designing engaging studies, monitoring refusal and distress, and partnering with parents. Research with toddlers requires flexibility and creativity to respect toddlers in the context of their developmental capabilities.     

健康人格研究述评

在适应现代生活的同时人们愈来愈重视人格健康问题,个体的健康人格状况一直受到学者们的关注.文章对国内外二十年来健康人格的理论和实证研究进展进行了系统综述.在此基础上,指出了健康人格研究领域存在的问题和将来进一步研究的方向.     

Patient Expectations of Benefit from Phase I Clinical Trials: Linguistic Considerations in Diagnosing a Therapeutic Misconception

The ethical treatment of cancer patientsparticipating in clinical trials requiresthat patients are well-informed about thepotential benefits and risks associated withparticipation. When patients enrolled in phaseI clinical trials report that their chance ofbenefit is very high, this is often taken as evidence of a failure of the informed consent process. We argue, however, that some simple themes from the philosophy of language may make such a conclusion less certain. First, the patient may receive conflicting statements from multiple speakers about the expected outcome of the trial. Patients may be reporting the message they like best. Second, there is a potential problem of multivocality. Expressions of uncertainty of the frequency type(e.g., ``On average, 5 out of every 100 patientswill benefit') can be confused with expressionsof uncertainty of the belief type (e.g.,``The chance that I will benefit is about80%'). Patients may be informed using frequency-type statements and respond using belief-type statements. Third, each speech episode involving the investigator and the patient regarding outcomes may subservemultiple speech acts, some of which may beindirect. For example, a patient reporting ahigh expected benefit may be reporting a beliefabout the future, reassuring family members,and/or attempting to improve his or her outcome by apublic assertion of optimism. These sources oflinguistic confusion should be considered injudging whether the patient's reported expectation isgrounds for a bioethical concern that there hasbeen a failure in the informed consent process.     

The Ethics of Type 1 Diabetes Prediction and Prevention Research

There are approximately one million cases oftype 1 diabetes in the US, and the incidenceis increasing worldwide. Given that two-thirdsof cases present in childhood, it is criticalthat prediction and prevention research involvechildren. In this article, I examine whethercurrent research methodologies conform to theethical guidelines enumerated by the NationalCommission for the Protection of Human Subjectsof Biomedical and Behavioral Research, andadopted into the federal regulations thatprotect research subjects. I then offer twopolicy recommendations to help researchersdesign studies that conform to these ethicalrequirements.     

Polish Research Ethics Committees in the European Union System of Assessing Medical Experiments

The Polish equivalents of Research Ethics Committees are Bioethics Committees (BCs). A questionnaire study has been undertaken to determine their situation. The BC is usually comprised of 13 members. Nine of these are doctors and four are non-doctors. In 2006 BCs assessed an average of 27.3 ± 31.7 (range: 0–131) projects of clinical trials and 71.1 ± 139.8 (range: 0–638) projects of other types of medical research. During one BC meeting an average of 10.3 ± 14.7 (range: 0–71) projects of medical research were assessed (2006). The amendment of Polish laws according with Directive 2001/20/EC caused a percentage increase in BCs which assessed less than 20 projects per year (16% vs. 33% or 42% in 2003 vs. 2005 or 2006 respectively, p < 0,05). The results confirm the usefulness of the current practice of creating BCs by medical universities, medical institutes and regional chambers of physicians and dentists but rationalization of the workload for individual BCs is necessary.

美国人类受试者使用的历史

所有关于研究伦理的国际法典及实际中的关于人体受试者研究领域的各国立法及规则都表明了保护主义的姿态,他们的主旨是保护个人不受伤害和剥削。这种保护主义姿态有其重要的历史原因,起草这些文件具有这样的目的;保证像被纳粹医生-研究者犯下的罪行,试验药物Thalidomide引发的灾难及Tuskegee梅毒研究对伦理道德的亵渎永远不会重演,近些年来社会对临床研究的理解已发生了戏剧性转变,如经AIDS积极分子努力的结果,人们已以宽容和有益的心态广泛接受临床试验。虽然这种姿态的转变已产生了在指导进行临床研究方面的政策及实践某些重要的改善,但人们必须认识到,这种新的接受正像先前的过度保护主义一样的错误,其应该维护一个平衡的比例。我们的政策应反映出鼓励符合伦理学的研究的要求,同时要保持必要的防范以保护受试者的权益。     

Seven Vulnerabilities in the Pediatric Research Subject

Most recent thinking about thevulnerability of research subjects uses a``subpopulation' focus. So conceived, theproblem is to work out special standards forprisoners, pregnant women, the mentally ill,children, and similar groups. In contrast, an``analytical' approach would identifycharacteristics that are criteria forvulnerability. Using these criteria, one couldsupport a judgment that certain individuals arevulnerable and identify needed accommodationsif they are to serve as research subjects.Seven such characteristics can be evident inchildren: they commonly lack the capacity tomake mature decisions; they are subject to theauthority of others; they (and their parents)may be deferential in ways that can maskunderlying dissent; their rights and interestsmay be socially undervalued; they may haveacute medical conditions requiring immediatedecisions not consistent with informed consent;they may have serious medical conditions thatcannot be effectively treated; and they (andtheir parents) may lack important sociallydistributed goods. Each of thesevulnerabilities can call for special care inthe design and implementation of researchprotocols.     

Finding Voice: The Photovoice Method of Data Collection in HIV and AIDS-Related Research

This study examined the efficacy of photovoice as a research technique to explore the lives of children and families living in the context of HIV and AIDS. Participants were volunteers at a Day Care and Support Centre (n=18), and members of a community support group consisting of People Living with AIDS (n=5). The findings revealed that the photovoice method is particularly useful for dealing with the ‘unspoken’ lived experience of children and families.     

权利优先、还是义务优先——对涉及人的生物医学研究中受试者权利与义务关系的理性思考

对“权利与义务”从“公正”方面进行了解读,论述了在涉及人的生物医学研究中,受试者权利与义务之间的复杂关系,提出“受试者权利优先”是平衡两者关系的基本原则;确立了“受试者权利优先”的具体策略：首先尊重受试者的权利（首要性）;当受试者的权利与受试者的义务出现一定矛盾时,应该把尊重受试者的权利放在首位（至上性）;在尊重受试者的权利中,化解两者矛盾。     

Ethics in Research

Summary

This article presents an overview of the history of efforts to protect human subjects in research. It discusses the establishment of international, national, organizational, and institutional procedures designed to protect human participants. The article provides a detailed summary of the principal ethical codes for research and their origins. It includes discussions of the most frequently encountered ethical issues ranging from the initial decision to undertake the project, through the selection and application of the various research procedures, to the analysis and interpretation of the data.     

Ethics in Publication

Summary

This article highlights ethical issues in publication. It addresses the provenance of ideas, problems with joint authorship, plagiarism, and the practice of duplicate submission of material for publication. Confidentiality and privacy matters, and the protection of human subjects in publication of research and clinical case studies are also discussed. The article further examines biases in literature reviews, and in the biased selection of one's best results for publication, intentional misinterpretation of data and the slanting of discussion, summary, and conclusions. Finally, the article deals with ethical problems that can arise in the publication of sponsored research, and the ethical responsibilities of editors and readers.