Abstract
An overarching theory for research ethics which determines what we owe to human beings in clinical research is absent. Thus far, the debate has focused mainly on negative obligations towards human subjects, such as the idea that participants must not be exploited or not be used merely as a means. A theory of research ethics should also take into account the positive obligations of what we owe to human beings. However, in order to establish this theory, we first need to reflect on the paradigm in which such a theory is framed. In this paper we argue that the current paradigm in research ethics is changing. Human subjects research seems to be regarded as an ordinary rather than an extraordinary practice in our society. Hence, research involving human beings does not deserve justification primarily because it is inherently problematic to enrol them in clinical research. A paradigm in which an immediate need to justify an unjustifiable practice is absent, may alter and influence our ideas on what we owe to human beings in research, both in a negative and positive sense.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Brassington I (2007) John Harris’ argument for a duty to research. Bioethics 21(3):160–168
Brassington I (2011) Defending the duty to research? Bioethics 25(1):21–26
Chan S, Harris J (2009) Free riders and pious sons—why science research remains obligatory. Bioethics 23(3):161–171
Chiong W (2006) The real problem with equipoise. Am J Bioethics 6(4):37–47
Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C (2000) What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 283:2701–2711
Jonas H (1969) Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. Daedalus 98:219–247
Harris J (2005) Scientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics 31(4):162, 242–248
Helgesson G, Eriksson S (2008) Against the principle that the individual shall have priority over
Science. J Med Ethics 34: 54–56
London AJ (2007) Two dogmas of research ethics and the integrative approach to human-subjects research. J Med Philos 32: 99–116
Miller FG, Brody H (2003) A critique of clinical equipoise: therapeutic misconception in the ethics of clinical trials. Hastings Cent Rep 33(3):19–28
Miller FG, Joffe S (2009) Limits to research risks. J Med Ethics 35:445–449
Schaefer GO, Emanuel EJ, Wertheimer A (2009) The obligation to participate in biomedical research. JAMA 302(1):67–72
Shapshay S, Pimple KD (2007) Participation in biomedical research is an imperfect moral duty: a response to John Harris. J Med Ethics 33:414–417
Van der Graaf R, Van Delden JJM (2010) On using people merely as a means in clinical research. Bioethics doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01820.x.
Wendler D (2009) The ethics of clinical research. In: Zalta EN et al. (eds.) Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/clinical-research/#MinRis. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University
Wertheimer A (2011) Rethinking the ethics of clinical research. Widening the lens. Oxford University Press, Oxford
World Medical Association (WMA) (2008) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Amendment 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Basel AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van der Graaf, R., van Delden, J.J. (2012). A Paradigm Change in Research Ethics. In: Schildmann, J., Sandow, V., Rauprich, O., Vollmann, J. (eds) Human Medical Research. Springer, Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-0390-8_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-0390-8_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Basel
Print ISBN: 978-3-0348-0389-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-0348-0390-8
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)