Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:55:04.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Call of Duty at the Frontier of Research: Normative Epistemology for High-Risk/High-Gain Studies of Deep Brain Stimulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2018

MERLIN BITTLINGER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Research participants are entitled to many rights that may easily come into conflict. The most important ones are that researchers respect their autonomy as persons and act on the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Since 2014, research subjects from numerous states in the United States of America also have a legal “right to try” that allows them, under certain circumstances, to receive experimental (i.e., preliminarily tested) interventions, including medical devices, before official approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration. In the context of experimental interventions, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Alzheimer’s disease, this article argues that research participants ought never to have a legal “right to try” without a corresponding “right to be sure.” The latter refers to external epistemic justification construed in terms of reliance on reliable evidence. This article demonstrates that the mere complexity of intervention ensembles, as in the case of DBS for Alzheimer’s disease which serves as a paradigm example, illustrate how unanswered and/or unasked open questions give rise to a “combinatorial explosion” of uncertainties that require epistemic responses that no single research team alone is likely able to provide. From this assessment, several epistemic asymmetrical relations between researchers and participants are developed. By elucidating these epistemic asymmetries, this article unravels the reasons why open science, transparent exhaustive data reporting, preregistration, and continued constant critical appraisal via pre- and postpublication peer review are not scientific virtues of moral excellence but rather ordinary obligations of the scientific work routine required to increase reliability and strength of evidence.

Keywords

neuroethicsdeep brain stimulationclinical translationAlzheimer’s diseaseuncertaintyepistemic obligationsocial epistemologyculpable ignorance
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 27 , Special Issue 4: Clinical Neuroethics , October 2018 , pp. 647 - 659
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author receives financial support from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (01GP1621A) and works as research fellow for the international research consortium “Psychiatric Neurosurgery – Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues” 2015; available at http://www.neuron-eranet.eu/en/630.php (last accessed 1 Apr 2018).

References

Notes

1. Cummings, JL, Morstorf, T, Zhong, K. Alzheimer’s disease drug-development pipeline: few candidates, frequent failures. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy 2014;6(4):37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Johnson, CY. Why coming up with a drug for Alzheimer’s is so devilishly hard. Washington Post, 2018; available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/12/why-coming-up-with-a-drug-for-alzheimers-is-so-devilishly-hard/?utm_term=.ff3af498c17b, (last accessed 13 Mar 2018).Google Scholar

3. The preparation of this present manuscript was performed under the influence of attending the conference “Lost in the Maze? Navigating evidence and ethics in translational neuroscience” in Hannover, Germany (February 14–16, 2018).

4. Clifford, WK. The ethics of belief. In: Burger, AJ, ed. The Ethics of Belief, Revised ed. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform; 1879/2008:9–40.Google Scholar

5. Emanuel, EJ, Wendler, D, Grady, C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000;283(20):2701–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Goldberg, SC. Should have known. Synthese 2017;194(8):2863–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Although fictitious, the case is not far-fetched. The first trials with patients with probable early-onset Alzheimer’s disease have already been conducted and some people’s motivation to participate was superimposed by the frightening thought that otherwise only suicide might remain as the last resort. See “What should I have done, then? Either I take myself to the water [German saying for suicide] or what do I know?” [Translation], September 27, 2011; available at https://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/visite/schwerpunkte/Hirnstimulation-gegen-Alzheimer,visite6207.html (last accessed 3 Mar 2018).

8. Horng, S, Grady, C. Misunderstanding in clinical research: Distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, & therapeutic optimism. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2003;25(1):11–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Bell, E, Leger, P, Sankar, T, Racine, E. Deep brain stimulation as clinical innovation: An ethical and organizational framework to sustain deliberations about psychiatric deep brain stimulation. Neurosurgery 2016;79(1):3–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Fins, JJ. Commentary: Deep brain stimulation as clinical innovation: an ethical and organizational framework to sustain deliberations about psychiatric deep brain stimulation. Neurosurgery 2016;79(1):11–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Insel, TR. Join the disruptors of health science. Nature 2017;551(7678):23–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. Kimmelman, J, London, AJ. The structure of clinical translation: Efficiency, information, and ethics. Hastings Center Report 2015;45(2):27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Bateson, G. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Northvale, NJ, London: Jason Aronson Inc.; 1972.Google Scholar

14. Kimmelman, J. A theoretical framework for early human studies: Uncertainty, intervention ensembles, and boundaries. Trials 2012;13:173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

15. See note 5, Emanuel 2000.

16. Kimmelman, J, Mogil, JS, Dirnagl, U. Distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory preclinical research will improve translation. PLoS Biology 2014;12(5):e1001863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17. See note 14, Kimmelmann 2012.

18. Bittlinger, M, Müller, S. Opening the debate on deep brain stimulation for Alzheimer disease—A critical evaluation of rationale, shortcomings, and ethical justification. BMC Medical Ethics 2018;19(41):1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Viaña, JNM, Vickers, JC, Cook, MJ, Gilbert, F. Currents of memory: Recent progress, translational challenges, and ethical considerations in fornix deep brain stimulation trials for Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiology of Aging 2017;56:202–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

20. Bittlinger, M, Müller, S. P 137 an ethical perspective on deep brain stimulation as an investigational treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. Clinical Neurophysiology 2017;128(10):e395–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. van der, Worp HB, Howells, DW, Sena, ES, Porritt, MJ, Rewell, S, O’Collins, V, et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Medicine 2010;7(3):e1000245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Kimmelman, J, Henderson, V. Assessing risk/benefit for trials using preclinical evidence: a proposal. Journal of Medical Ethics 2016;42:50–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. Scharre, DW, Weichart, E, Nielson, D, Zhang, J, Agrawal, P, Sederberg, PB, et al. Deep brain stimulation of frontal lobe networks to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 2018;62:621–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

24. Kuhn, J, Hardenacke, K, Lenartz, D, Gruendler, T, Ullsperger, M, Bartsch, C, et al. Deep brain stimulation of the nucleus basalis of Meynert in Alzheimer’s dementia. Molecular Psychiatry 2015;20(3):353–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

25. Lozano, AM, Fosdick, L, Chakravarty, MM, Leoutsakos, JM, Munro, C, Oh, E, et al. A Phase II study of fornix deep brain stimulation in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s disease 2016;54(2):777–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

26. See note 19, Viaña et al. 2017.

27. See note 16, Kimmelmann et al. 2014.

28. Talk, Lozano A. Two failed trials of DBS for depression; what went wrong? Presented at the 17th Quadrennial Meeting of the World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery. Pre-Meeting Workshop. Surgery for Psychiatric Disorders. Berlin, 2017.Google Scholar

29. See note 16, Kimmelmann, et al. 2014.

30. United States Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Q9 Quality risk management. In: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Washington, DC: United States Food and Drug Administration; 2006.Google Scholar

31. Eyal, N. How to keep high-risk studies ethical: Classifying candidate solutions. Journal of Medical Ethics 2017;43(2):74–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

32. Hug, K, Johansson, M. Challenges to informed consent in first-in-human trials involving novel treatments: A case study of Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Parkinson’s Disease 2017;7(4):695–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

33. Goerlandt, F, Reniers, G. On the assessment of uncertainty in risk diagrams. Safety Science 2016;84:67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. See note 19, Viaña et al. 2017; note 21, van der Worp et al. 2010.

35. Wegwarth, O, Wagner, GG, Gigerenzer, G. Can facts trump unconditional trust? Evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians’ non-evidence-based cancer screening recommendations. PLoS ONE 2017;12(8):e0183024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

36. Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Seventh ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.Google Scholar

37. Goldman, AI. What is justified belief? In: Pappas, G, ed. Justification and Knowledge. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company; 1979:1–23.Google Scholar

38. Wicherts, JM. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLoS ONE 2016;11(1):e0147913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

39. Moher, D, Simera, I, Schulz, KF, Hoey, J, Altman, DG. Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research. BMC Medicine 2008;6(1):13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

40. Nosek, BA, Alter, G, Banks, GC, Borsboom, D, Bowman, SD, Breckler, SJ, et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science 2015;348(6242):1422–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

41. Ioannidis, JPA, Fanelli, D, Dunne, DD, Goodman, SN. Meta-research: Evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biology 2015;13(10):e1002264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

42. McKiernan, EC, Bourne, PE, Brown, CT, Buck, S, Kenall, A, Lin, J, et al. How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife 2016;5:e16800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

43. See note 6, Goldberg 2017.

44. John, S. Epistemic trust and the ethics of science communication: Against transparency, openness, sincerity and honesty. Social Epistemology 2018;32(2):75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45. See note 44, John 2018.