Working from Both Ends: The Dual Role of Philosophy in Research Ethics
If ethical principles can come into conflict, for example, in the debates about research ethics, in what way can philosophical analysis help resolve such conflicts? Through an examination of the work of Beauchamp and Childress, John Rawls, and Bernard Williams, Fives identifies a dual role for philosophy in research ethics. Through abstract and general theoretical reflection, which requires a significant degree of disengagement, we can examine such issues as whether moral conflicts arise in our ethical evaluation of research protocols. Through practical reasoning, which requires ongoing, direct involvement, we can pursue agreement on public matters, including cases where we are faced with moral dilemmas. This chapter combines theoretical analysis with a close examination of the moral dilemmas arising in one case study.
KeywordsMoral Dilemma Moral Duty Moral Consideration Public Reason Ethical Evaluation
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. I would also like to thank Keith Breen, in particular, for his critical insights. I have written on this topic elsewhere, including a number of joint-authored papers with colleagues in the UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre at NUI Galway. I would also like to acknowledge the importance, for my own understanding of this field, of the work of colleagues on the NUI Galway Research Ethics Committee, including Heike Schmidt-Felzmann, Brian McGuire, and Saoirse Nic Gabhainn. Finally, I would like to thank Joseph Mahon for starting my formal education in this area.
- Association of Research Ethics Committees (AREC). (2013). A framework of policies and procedures for university research ethics committees. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://s3.spanglefish.com/s/21217/documents/independent-membership/12-11-13-framework-complete.pdf.
- Barnardos. (2008). Wizards of words’ manual for volunteers. Dublin: Barnardos.Google Scholar
- Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bonell, C. P., Hargreaves, J., Ciousens, S., Ross, D., Hayes, R., Petticrew, M., & Kirkwood, B. R. (2011). Alternatives to randomisation in the evaluation of public health interventions: Design challenges and solutions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65(7), 582–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brooks, G. (2002). What works for children with literacy difficulties? The effectiveness of intervention schemes. London: Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved July, 20, 2015 from http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR380.pdf.
- Fives, A. (2013b). Political reason: Morality and the public sphere. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
- Fives, A., Russell, D., Kearns, N., Lyons, R., Eaton, P., Canavan, J., Devaney, C., & O’Brien, A. (2013a). The role of random allocation in randomized controlled trials: Distinguishing selection bias from baseline imbalance. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 9(20), 33–42.Google Scholar
- Fives, A., Russell, D., Kearns, N., Lyons, R., Eaton, P., Canavan, J., Devaney, C., & O’Brien, A. (2015). The ethics of randomized controlled trials in social settings: Can social trials be scientifically promising and must there be equipoise? International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(1), 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fried, C. (1974). Medical experimentation: Personal integrity and social policy. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Irish Council for Bioethics (ICB). (2004). Operational procedures for research ethics committees: Guidance 2004. Dublin: Irish Council for Bioethics.Google Scholar
- Jaded, A. (1998). Randomised controlled trials: A user’s guide. London: BMJ Books.Google Scholar
- Jonsen, A. R., & Toulmin, S. (1988). The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- National Economic and Social Forum (NESF). (2005). Early childhood care and education, Report 31. Dublin: NESF.Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. (1999a ). The idea of an overlapping consensus. In S. Freeman (Ed.), John Rawls: Collected papers (pp. 421–448). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. (1999b ). The idea of public reason revisited. In S. Freeman (Ed.), John Rawls: Collected papers (pp. 573–615). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Raz, J. (1990). Facing diversity: The case of epistemic abstinence. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(1), 3–46.Google Scholar
- Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inferences. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar