The distribution of biomedical research resources and international justice

Developing World Bioethics

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 42-57

  Resnik, David B ^a  

^a EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; DRUG INDUSTRY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; JUSTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW;

EID: 2342560506     PISSN: 14718731     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-8731.2004.00066.x     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. D. Resnik. Setting Biomedical Research Priorities: Justice, Science, and Public Participation. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2001; 11: 181-204.
2. Institute of Medicine. 1999. The Unequal Burden of Cancer. Washington. National Academy Press.
3. S. Benatar. Avoiding Exploitation in Clinical Research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2000; 9: 562-565. 'Burden of Disease' is a measurement of several different factors related to the impact of a disease on individuals and society including the incidence of the disease, mortality rate, the degree of disability caused by the disease, the impact of the disease on life expectancy, economic and social aspects of the disease, and public health considerations. See: Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Health Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC. National Academy Press.
4. S. Benatar. Avoiding Exploitation in Clinical Research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2000; 9: 562-565. 'Burden of Disease' is a measurement of several different factors related to the impact of a disease on individuals and society including the incidence of the disease, mortality rate, the degree of disability caused by the disease, the impact of the disease on life expectancy, economic and social aspects of the disease, and public health considerations. See: Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Health Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC. National Academy Press.
5. R. May. The Scientific Investment of Nations. Science 1999; 281: 49-55. Note: these data do not include Israel or Russia, two other developed nations that sponsor a great deal of R&D. It is important to discuss both research (R) and development (D). Research occurs when scientists make a new discovery or invention. Development takes place when engineers and technicians develop reliable methods and procedures for manufacturing, packaging, storing, labelling, and distributing a product derived from the new discovery or invention.
6. May, op. dt. note 5.
7. I b i d.
8. I b i d .
9. A. Jaffe. Trends and Patterns of Research and Development Expenditures in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1996; 93: 12658-12663.
10. D. Resnik. Setting Biomedical Research Priorities in the 21st Century. Virtual Mentor 2003; 5: 7. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/10571.html (accessed July 23, 2003).
11. D. Korn, R.R. Rich, H.H. Garrison, S.H. Golub, M.J.C. Hendrix, S.J. Heinig, B.S. Masters & R.J. Turman. The NIH Budget in the 'Postdoubling' Era. Science 2002; 296: 1401-1402.
12. J. Cohen. Philanthropy's Rising Tide Lifts Science. Science 1999; 286: 214-222.
13. I b i d.
14. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Global Health. Available at: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/ (accessed July 22, 2003).
15. Howard Hughes Medical Institute. 2003. Disbursements in Fiscal 2002. Available at: http://www.hhmi.org/about/a610.html (accessed July 22, 2003).
16. The Wellcome Trust. 2003. Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/awtvisfaq.html#3 (accessed July 22, 2003).
17. Resnik, op. cit. note 9.
18. A. Goldhammer. Current Issues in Clinical Research and the Development of New Pharmaceuticals. Accountability in Research 2000; 8: 283-291.
19. D. Resnik. Developing Drugs for the Developing World: An Economic, Legal, Moral, and Political Dilemma. Developing World Bioethics 2001; 1: 11-32.
20. Ibid. D. Brock. Some Questions about the Moral Responsibilities of Drug Companies in Developing Countries. Developing World Bioethics 2001; 1: 33-37.
21. Resnik, op. cit. note 1.
22. R. Dresser. 2001. When Science Offers Salvation. New York. Oxford University Press.
23. Fogarty International Center. About FIC. Available at: http://www.fic.nih.gov/about.html (accessed July 23, 2003).
24. This paper will use the words 'justice' and 'fairness' interchangeably.
25. Plato. 1974 [circa 400 BC]. The Republic Translated by G. Grube. Indianapolis. Hackett.
26. C. Beitz. 1999. Political Theory and International Relations. Second edition. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press.
27. M. Sandel. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
28. Beitz, op. cit. note 25.
29. I b i d.
30. For further argument and discussion, see: Beitz, op. cit. note 25.
31. R. Nozick. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York. Basic Books.
32. J. Rawls. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
33. P. Singer. 1979. Practical Ethics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. I recognise the important distinction between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. For the purposes of this paper, I will examine a rule-utilitarian approach to international justice. M. Häyry. 2002. Utilitarian Approaches to Justice in Health Care. In Medicine and Social Justice. R. Rhodes, M. Battin & A. Silvers, eds. New York. Oxford University Press: 53-64.
34. P. Singer. 1979. Practical Ethics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. I recognise the important distinction between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. For the purposes of this paper, I will examine a rule-utilitarian approach to international justice. M. Häyry. 2002. Utilitarian Approaches to Justice in Health Care. In Medicine and Social Justice. R. Rhodes, M. Battin & A. Silvers, eds. New York. Oxford University Press: 53-64.
35. Ibid. Rawls, op. cit. note 31.
36. I b i d.
37. J. Rawls. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York. Columbia University Press.
38. J. Rawls. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
39. Rawls, op. cit. note 31.
40. I b i d.
41. N. Daniels. 1984. Just Health Care. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
42. Rawls did not believe that the equality principle and the difference principle could be applied internationally. He developed other principles for international justice. I am deliberately misrepresenting his views to simplify my analysis in this paper. For further discussion of Rawl's approach to international justice, see: C. Beitz. Rawls's Law of Peoples. Ethics 2000; 110: 669-697.
43. Dresser, op. cit. note 21.
44. Resnik, op. cit. note 18. J. Cohen & P. Illingworth. The Dilemma of Intellectual Property Rights for Pharmaceuticals: The Tension between Ensuring Access of the Poor to Medicines and Committing to International Agreements. Developing World Bioethics 2003; 3: 27-48.
45. Resnik, op. cit. note 18. J. Cohen & P. Illingworth. The Dilemma of Intellectual Property Rights for Pharmaceuticals: The Tension between Ensuring Access of the Poor to Medicines and Committing to International Agreements. Developing World Bioethics 2003; 3: 27-48.
46. Brock, op. cit. note 19. U. Schüklenk & R. Ashcroft. Access to Essential Medication in Developing Countries: Conflicts Between Ethical and Economic Imperatives. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2002; 27: 179-195.
47. Brock, op. cit. note 19. U. Schüklenk & R. Ashcroft. Access to Essential Medication in Developing Countries: Conflicts Between Ethical and Economic Imperatives. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2002; 27: 179-195.
48. Resnik, op. cit. note 18.
49. Cohen & Illingworth, op. cit. note 42.
50. Resnik, op. cit. note 18.
51. Schüklenk & Ashcroft, op. cit. note 43.