Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:23:02.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Non-Paternalistic Model of Research Ethics and Oversight: Assessing the Benefits of Prospective Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Alex John London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To judge from the rash of recent law review articles, it is a miracle that research with human subjects in the U.S. continues to draw breath under the asphyxiating heel of the rent-seeking, creativity-stifling, jack-booted bureaucrethics that is the current system of research ethics oversight and review. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), sometimes called Research Ethics Committees (RECs), have been accused of perpetrating “probably the most widespread violation of the First Amendment in our nation's history,” resulting in a “disaster, not only for academics, but for the whole nation.” One member of the President's Council on Bioethics went so far as to assert, “There has been no greater damage to academic freedom in the United States in my lifetime. And my lifetime encompasses McCarthy and it encompasses political correctness, both.” Locked in the bureaucratic “iron cage” of IRB oversight, critics charge that researchers have been transformed into a vulnerable, exposed population, subject to domination, that has been likened in one case to a kind of “Tuskegee in reverse.”

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , Winter 2012 , pp. 930 - 944
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2012

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.)

References

See Mueller, J. H., “Ignorance Is Neither Bliss Nor Ethical,” Northwestern University Law Review 101, no. 2 (2007): 809–836 for the clearest “capture-theoretic” account of research ethics regulation. Mueller argues that the one clear benefit of increased regulation has been “jobs, jobs, jobs” for the research ethics “industry,” going so far as to wonder “if there may not be nearly as many ethics reviewers, regulators, and staff as there are researchers,” and referring to the research ethics enterprise as a “pyramid scheme” (at 820–821).Google Scholar
“Trying to unravel the mystery of the social sciences' survival in the face of IRB encroachment is a challenge replete with paradoxes and illusions. The exercise demands that we probe the convergent logics of two mutually exclusive things that must somehow co-exist: creativity and regulation.” Later, these authors assert that the survival of any creative research at all must itself be attributed to complicity of researchers with these organs of censorship: “That any creative research at all has survived under the IRB system, distorted as we believe it has become, must be attributed to the dynamics of consensual censorship between investigators and IRBs.” Bledsoe, C. H. Herin, B. S., and Galinsky, A. G. et al., “Regulating Creativity: Research and Survival in the IRB Iron Cage,” Northwestern University Law Review 101, no. 2 (2007): 593–641, at 597 and 628.Google Scholar
Columbia Law School press release dated November 24, 2009 quoting Philip Hamburger.Google Scholar
Schneider, C., “Session 2: National Ethics Committees: Mission, Functions, Philosophies, and Modus Operandi,” discussion on March 12, 2009, transcript available at <http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/transcripts/march09/session2.html> (last visited December 4, 2012).+(last+visited+December+4,+2012).>Google Scholar
See Bledsoe, et al., supra note 1, at 608 and 610.Google Scholar
Malone, R. E. Yerger, V. B. McGruder, C., and Floelicher, E., ‘”It's Like Tuskegee in Reverse’: A Case Study of Ethical Tensions in Institutional Review Board Review of Community-Based Participatory Research,” American Journal of Public Health 96, no. 11 (2006): 1914–1919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitney, S. N. and Schneider, C. E., “Viewpoint: A Method to Estimate the Cost in Lives of Ethics Board Review of Biomedical Research,” Journal of Internal Medicine 269, no. 4 (2011): 392–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Mueller, , supra note 1, at 810.Google Scholar
Hyman, D. A., “Institutional Review Boards: Is This the Least Worst We Can Do?” Northwestern University Law Review 101, no. 2 (2007): 749–774, at 756.Google Scholar
See Mueller, , supra note 1, at 832.Google Scholar
Miller, F. and Wertheimer, A., “Facing Up to Paternalism,” Hastings Center Report 37, no. 3 (May-June 2007): 24–34; Jansen, L. A. and Wall, S., “Paternalism and Fairness in Clinical Research,” Bioethics 23, no. 3 (2009): 172–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
I am not denying that there are vulnerable individuals or groups in the U.S. who may require special protection in the research context. Rather, the point is that the framework that I propose can ground central aspects of the current system of research oversight without recourse to such claims. It is a separate question whether there is a legitimate role for hard or soft paternalism in research ethics, and an answer in the affirmative would provide reasons to bolster or strengthen some of these mechanisms. Because critics often deny a legitimate role for paternalism, it is important to demonstrate whether, how, and which aspects of research oversight can be justified without recourse to such claims.Google Scholar
Hardin, G., “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 162, no. 3859 (1968): 1243–1248.Google Scholar
Contrast the high-status of research and researchers, and the way that this refects on institutions that support them, with the low-status of used car salesmen as discussed below.Google Scholar
London, A. J., “Clinical Research in a Public Health Crisis: The Integrative Approach Managing Uncertainty and Mitigating Confict,” Seton Hall Law Review 39, no. 4 (2009): 1173–1202; London, A. J., “Threats to the Common Good: Biochemical Weapons and Human Subjects Research,” Hastings Center Report 33, no. 5 (2003): 17–25; Jonas, H., “Philosophical Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects,” Daedalus 98, no. 2 (1968): 219–247.Google Scholar
Goodman, S. N., “Stopping at Nothing? Some Dilemmas of Data Monitoring in Clinical Trials,” Annals of Internal Medicine 146, no. 12 (2007): 882–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, R. and Ellenberg, S., “Placebo-Controlled Trials and Active-Control Trials in the Evaluation of New Treatments: Part 1: Ethical and Scientific Issues,” Annals of Internal Medicine 133 no. 6 (2000): 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senn, S., “The Misunderstood Placebo,” Applied Clinical Trials 10, no. 5 (2001): 40–45.Google Scholar
Potts, M., “Thinking About Vaginal Microbicide Testing,” American Journal of Public Health 90, no. 2 (2000): 188–190; Leon, A. C., “Can Placebo Controls Reduce the Number of Non-Responders in Clinical Trials? A Power–Analytic Perspective,” Clinical Therapeutics 23, no. 4 (2001): 596–607; Freedman, B. Weijer, C., and Glass, K. C., “Placebo Orthodoxy in Clinical Research I: Empirical and Methodological Myths,” Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics 24, no. 3 (1996): 243–251.Google Scholar
Miller, F. G. and Grady, C., “The Ethical Challenge of Infection-Inducing Challenge Experiments,” Clinical Infectious Diseases 33, no. 7 (2001): 1028–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For recent revelations of the lengths that researchers from the U.S. Public Health Services were willing to go to in order to infect research subjects with Syphilis in the 1940s, see Reverby, S. M., “‘Normal Exposure’ and Inoculation Syphilis: A PHS ‘Tuskegee’ Doctor in Guatemala, 1946–48,” Journal of Policy History 23, no. 1 (2011): 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The delay, inconvenience, and possible anxiety caused in research subjects by informed consent is a recurring theme in research scandals of the post-World-War II era. For an excellent case study see Arras, J. D., “The Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Case,” in Emanuel, E. J. Grady, C., and Crouch, R. et al., eds., The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008): At 73–79.Google Scholar
Indeed, one of the factors that enabled the Tuskegee syphilis study to persist over a 40 year period was the commitment of public health researchers to the idea that understanding the natural history of the disease was of fundamental importance. This professional curiosity persisted even after this information lost any clinical value it may once have had. Moreover, those involved in the study maintained its importance even once it was clear that the study itself had little or no social value. See Jones, J. H., Bad Blood, rev. ed. (New York: Free Press, 1993); Jones, J. H., “The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment,” in Emanuel, E. J. Grady, C., and Crouch, R. et al., eds., The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008): At 86–96.Google Scholar
Beecher, H. E., “Ethics and Clinical Research,” New England Journal of Medicine 274, no. 24 (1966): 1354–1360, at 1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 1354–1355.Google Scholar
Id., at 1354.Google Scholar
Id., at 1355.Google Scholar
Id., at 1360.Google Scholar
For related arguments, see Moss, J., “If Institutional Review Boards Were Declared Unconstitutional, They Would Have to Be Reinvented,” Northwestern University Law Review 101, no. 2 (2007): 801–807.Google Scholar
Suntharalingam, G. Perry, M. R., and Ward, S. et al., “Cytokine Storm in a Phase 1 Trial of the Anti-CD28 Monoclonal Antibody TGN1412,” New England Journal of Medicine 355, no. 10 (2006): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingwall, R., “The Ethical Case Against Ethical Regulation in Humanities and Social Science Research,” 21st Century Society 3, no. 1 (2008): 1–12, at 3.Google Scholar
Akerlof, G. A., “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 84, no. 3 (1970): 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For a discussion of recent cases in which trial data were not published, or were published only years after studies were completed, see Fauber, J., “BMJ: Discipline Researchers Who Withhold Research Results,” MedPage Today, January 3, 2012, available at <http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/ClinicalTrials/30482> (last visited December 4, 2012).+(last+visited+December+4,+2012).>Google Scholar
London, A. J. Kimmelman, J., and Emborg, M. E., “Beyond Access vs. Protection in Trials of Innovative Therapies,” Science 328, no. 5980 (2010): 829–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, D., “Confdence Games: How Does Regulation Constitute Markets?” in Balleisen, E. and Moss, D., eds., Government and Markets: Toward a New Theory of Regulation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009): At 164–190.Google Scholar
See London, et al., supra note 34.Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996): at 273.Google Scholar
On the link between regulation relating to the FDA and civic republican values, see Carpenter, , supra note 35.Google Scholar
Compare to Philip Pettit's articulation of the civic republican conception of freedom and equal standing: “Being unfree consists in being subject to arbitrary sway: being subject to the potentially capricious will or the potentially idiosyncratic judgment of another. Freedom involves emancipation from any such subordination, liberation from any such dependency. It requires the capacity to stand eye to eye with your fellow citizens, in a shared awareness that none of you has the power of arbitrary interference over another.” Pettit, P., Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997): at 5.Google Scholar
The term “soldiers of science” is used by Jones, James H. to describe the reasoning of the U.S. Public Health Service when it prevented the men who were the unknowing participants in a scientific study from attempting to join the U.S. Military to fight during World War II. Rather than being soldiers in the military, if these men were to be put in harm's way, it would be as soldiers of science. See Jones, (2008), supra note 23.Google Scholar
Dresser, R., “Wanted: Single, White Male for Medical Research,” Hastings Center Report 22, no. 1 (1992): 24–29, at 26–27; Weijer, C. and Crouch, R. A., “Why Should We Include Women and Minorities in Randomized Controlled Trials?” Journal of Clinical Ethics 100, no. 2 (1999): 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.111(a)2 (2009).Google Scholar
London, A. J. Kimmelman, J., and Carlisle, B., “Rethinking Research Ethics: The Case of Postmarketing Trials,” Science 336, no. 6081 (2012): 544–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See London, et al., supra note 34.Google Scholar