Substantiating the social value requirement for research: An introduction

Bioethics

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 72-76

  Rid, Annette ^a   Shah, Seema K ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOETHICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH ETHICS; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

BIOETHICAL ISSUES; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; SOCIAL VALUES;

EID: 85009062971     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12321     Document Type: Editorial

References (66)

1. The Nuremberg Code. 1949. In Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law 10 (2): 181–182. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office. Available at: https:// history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf [accessed 30 October 2016].
2. World Medical Association. 2007. Declaration of Helsinki I, 18th World Medical Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964. In History and Theory of Human Experimentation: The Declaration of Helsinki and Modern Medical Ethics. U. Schmidt & A. Frewer, eds. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag: 339–340.
3. World Medical Association (WMA). 2013. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Available at: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/ [accessed 30 October 2016].
4. For example: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). 2002. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Available at: http://www.cioms.ch/ publications/guidelines/guidelines_nov_2002_blurb.htm [accessed 30 October 2016];
5. National Council for Science and Technology. 2004. Guidelines for Ethical Conduct of Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects in Kenya. Nairobi, NCST NO. 45. Available at: https://www.healthresearchweb.org/files/Kenya_Guidelines_Ethical_conduct_of_research_involving__human_subjects.pdf [accessed 30 October 2016]
6. Indian Medical Research Council. Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Participants. Available at: http://www. icmr.nic.in/ethical_guidelines.pdf [accessed 30 October 2016].
7. CIOMS. 2015. Revision of the International Ethical Guidelines for Research Involving Human Subjects, final draft, version 10 September 2015. Available at: http://www.cioms.ch/final_draft_CIOMS_guidelines- 10_september_2015-WITH_WATERMARKS.pdf [accessed 30 October 2016]. See also Indian Council of Medical Research. 2016. Draft National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research Involving Human Participants. Available at: http://www.icmr.nic.in/icmrnews/ draft_ethical/Draft%20National%20Ethical%20GUidelines%20- for%20Biomedical%20and%20Health%20Research%20Involving%20- Human%20Participants,%202016.pdf [accessed 30 October 2016].
8. E.J. Emanuel, D. Wendler & C. Grady. What Makes Clinical Research Ethical? JAMA 2000; 283: 2701–2711;
9. E.J. Emanuel, D. Wendler, J. Killen & C. Grady. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. J Infect Dis 2004; 189: 930–937.
10. Emanuel et al., op. cit. note 6, p. 2703.
11. B. Freedman. Scientific Value and Validity as Ethical Requirements for Research: A Proposed Explication. IRB 1987; 9: 7–10;
12. J.H. Karlawish. Clinical Value: The Neglected Axis in the System of Research Ethics. Account Res 1999; 7: 255–264;
13. C. Grady. Thinking Further about Value: Commentary on a _Taxonomy of Value in Clinical Research_. IRB 2001; 24: 7–8;
14. C. Grady. Thinking Further about Value: Commentary on a _Taxonomy of Value in Clinical Research_. IRB 2001; 24: 7–8;
15. D. Resnik. Social Benefits of Human Subjects Resarch. J Clin Res Best Pract 2008; 4: 1–7;
16. A. Rid & D. Wendler. A Framework for Risk-Benefit Evaluations in Biomedical Research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2011; 21(2): 141–179;
17. D. Shaw & B.S. Elger. The Relevance of Relevance in Research. Swiss Med Wkly 2013; 143: w13792;
18. M.G. Habets, J.J. van Delden, & A.L. Bredenoord. The Social Value of Clinical Research. BMC Med Ethics 2014; 15: 66.
19. Emanuel et al., op. cit. note 6.
20. C. E. Schneider. 2015. The Censor_s Hand: The Misregulation of Human-Subject Research. Boston: MIT Press.
21. A. Wertheimer. The Social Value Requirement Reconsidered. Bioethics 2015; 29: 301–8;
22. D. Resnik. Examining the Social Benefits Principle in Research with Human Participants. Health Care Anal 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s10728-016-0326-2.
23. A. J. London. A Non-Paternalistic Model of Research Ethics and Oversight: Assessing the Benefits of Prospective Review. J Law Med Ethics 2012; 40: 930–44.
24. N. Daniels. Equity and population health: toward a broader bioethics agenda. Hastings Cent Rep 2006; 46: 22–35;
25. D. Wikler & D.W. Brock. Population-Level Bioethics: Mapping a New Agenda. 2008. In Global Bioethics: Issues of Conscience for the Twenty-First Century. R.M. Green, A. Donvan & S. Jauss, eds. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press, 15–35;
26. A. Dawson & M. Verweij. Public Health Ethics: A Manifesto. Public Health Ethics 2008; 1: 1–2;
27. O. O’Neill. 2011. Broadening bioethics: clinical ethics, public health and global health, Nuffield Council on Bioethics lecture 2011. Available at: http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Broadening_ bioethics_clinical_ethics_public_health_global_health.pdf [accessed 30 October 2016].
28. E.J. Emanuel & C. Grady. Four Paradigms of Research Oversight. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2007; 16: 82–96.
29. J. Kahn, A. Mastroianni & J. Sugarman, eds. Beyond consent: seeking justice in research. New York: Oxford University Press 1998;
30. L.M. Kopelman. Research with children: access vs. protection. New York: Oxford University Press 2006.
31. A.J. London. Justice and the human development approach to international research. Hastings Cent Rep 2005; 35: 24–37;
32. S. Shah, R. Wolitz & E. Emanuel. Refocusing the responsiveness requirement. Bioethics 2013; 27: 151–9;
33. B. Pratt & B. Loff. A framework to link international clinical research to the promotion of justice in global health. Bioethics 2014; 28: 287–296.
34. Wertheimer A, op. cit. note 11;
35. A. Wertheimer. 2011. Rethinking the Ethics of Clincial Research: Widening the Lens. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Wertheimer A, op. cit. note 11;
37. Resnik, op. cit. note 11.
38. D. Wendler & A. Rid. In Defense of a Social Value Requirement for Clinical Research. Bioethics 2017; 31(2): 77–86.
39. A. Ganguli Mitra, E. Dove, G. Laurie & S. Taylor-Alexander. Reconfiguring Social Value in Health Research Through the Lens of Liminality. Bioethics 2017; 31(2): 87–96.
40. D. Wenner. The Social Value of Knowledge and the Responsiveness Requirement for International Research. Bioethics 2017; 31(2): 97–104.
41. N. Barsdorf & J. Millum. The Social Value of Health Research and theWorst Off. Bioethics 2017; 31(2): 105–115.
42. R. Nayak & S.K. Shah. Should Social Value be Local or Global? Bioethics 2017; 31(2): 116–127.
43. E. Lutge, C. Slack & D. Wassenaar. Defining, Negotiating and Realizing the Social Value of Research: Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Research Active Province of South Africa. 2017; 31(2): 128–135.
44. G.M. Lairumbi, M. Parker, R. Fitzpatrick & M.C. English. Forms of benefit sharing in global health research undertaken in resource poor settings: a qualitative study of stakeholders_ views in Kenya. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2012; 7: 7.
45. S. Kalkman, G. van Thiel, R. van der Graaf, M. Zuidgeest, I. Goetz, D. Grobbee & J.J.M. van Delden. The Social Value of Pragmatic Trials. Bioethics 2017; 31(2): 136–143.
46. D.J.H. Matthews, D.M. Hester, J. Kahn, A. McGuire, R. McKinney, K. Meador, S. Philpott-Jones, S. Youngner & B. Wilfond. A Conceptual Model for the Translation of Bioethics Research and Scholarship. Hastings Cent Rep 2016; 46: 34–39.
47. T. Abma, Y. Voskes & G. Widdershoven. Participatory Bioethics Research and Its Social Impact: The Case of Coercion Reduction in Psychiatry. Bioethics 2017; 31(2): 144–152.
48. Wendler & Rid, op. cit. note 19;
49. Wenner, op. cit. note 21.
50. Wendler & Rid, op. cit. note 19;
51. Wenner, op. cit. note 21;
52. Barsdorf & Millum, op. cit. note 22;
53. Nayak & Shah, op. cit. note 23;
54. Kalkman et al., op. cit. note 26;
55. Abma et al., op. cit. note 28.
56. Ganguli Mitra et al., op. cit. note 20;
57. Nayak & Shah, op. cit. note 23.
58. Barsdorf & Millum, op. cit. note 22;
59. Wenner, op. cit. note 23.
60. Lutge et al., op. cit. note 24.
61. Kalkman et al., op. cit. note 26.
62. Wenner, op. cit. note 21; Barsdorf & Millum, op. cit. note 22;
63. Nayak & Shah, op. cit. note 23.
64. Abma et al., op. cit. note 28.
65. A. Buchanan & M. DeCamp. Responsibility for Global Health. Theor Med Bioeth 2006; 27: 95–114.
66. S. Miller & M.J. Selgelid. Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Sci Eng Ethics 2007; 13: 523–580.