Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T01:18:45.466Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why There Is No Obligation to Participate in Clinical Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Mark Yarborough
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Commentators tout the societal benefits of research to conclude that people have a civic duty to participate in it. A review of several problems in research demonstrate the contrary and reveal why claims we are duty-bound to participate in research deter urgently needed efforts to tackle multiple entrenched deficiencies in it.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 45 , Issue 3: Symposium - Controversies in Clinical Research Ethics , Fall 2017 , pp. 327 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2017

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Probstfield, J. L. and Frye, R. L., “Strategies for Recruitment and Retention of Participants in Clinical Trials,” JAMA 306, no. 16 (2011): 1798-1799.Google Scholar
Bower, O. et al., “Interventions to Improve Recruitment and Retention in Clinical Trials: A Survey and Workshop to Assess Current Practice and Future Priorities,” Trials 15 (2014) 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J., “Scientific Research Is a Moral Duty,” Journal of medical ethics 31, no. 4 (2005): 242-248.Google Scholar
Schaefer, G. O., Emanuel, E. J., and Wertheimer, A., “The Obligation to Participate in Biomedical Research,” JAMA 302, no. 1 (2009): 67-72.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R., “Rethinking Research Ethics,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 1 (2005): 7-28.Google Scholar
Rennie, S., “Viewing Research Participation as a Moral Obligation: In Whose Interests?: Hastings Center Report 41, no. 2 (2011): 40-47.Google ScholarPubMed
Kimmelman, J. and London, A. J., “Predicting Harms and Benefits in Translational Trials: Ethics, Evidence, and Uncertainty,” PLoS Med 8, no. 3 (2011): 1001-1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, I. and Glasziou, P., “Avoidable Waste in the Production and Reporting of Research Evidence,” The Lancet 374, no. 9683 (2009): 86-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BMJ, “Why Scientists Should Be Held to a Higher Standard of Honesty Than the Average Person,” BMJ Blogs (2016), availalbe at <http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/09/02/richard-smith-why-scientists-should-be-held-to-a-higher-standard-of-honesty-than-the-average-person/> (last visited September 15, 2017).+(last+visited+September+15,+2017).>Google Scholar
Macleod, M. R. et al., “Biomedical Research: Increasing Value, Reducing Waste,” The Lancet 383, no. 9912 (2014): 101-104.Google Scholar
Tsilidis, K. K. et al., “Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases,” PLoS Biol 11, no. 7 (2013): e1001609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sena, E. S., van der Worp, H. B., Bath, P. M., Howells, D. W., and Macleod, M. R., “Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy,” PLoS Biol 8, no. 7 (2010): e1000344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soergel, D. A. W., “Rampant Software Errors May Undermine Scientific Results [version 2],” F1000Research 3 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eklund, A., Nichols, T., and Knutsson, H., “Can Parametric Statistical Methods Be Trusted for fMRI Bbased Group Studies?” arXiv (2015).Google Scholar
NIH, “Rigor and Reproducibility,” available at < https://grants.nih.gov/reproducibility/index.htm> (last visited July 25, 2017).+(last+visited+July+25,+2017).>Google Scholar
Bik, E. M., Casadevall, A., and Fang, F. C., “The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications,” mBio 7, no. 3 (2016): e00809-00816Google Scholar
Relman, A. S. and Angell, M., “How the Drug Industry Distorts Medicine and Politics: America's Other Drug Problem,” The New Republic, December 16, 2002.Google Scholar
“New Drugs and Indications in 2011. France Is Better Focused on Patients' Interests after the Mediator Scandal, but Stagnation Elsewhere,” Prescrire International 21, no. 126 (2012): 106-110.Google Scholar
Bleyer, A., “In and Out, Good and Bad News, of Generalizability of SWOG Treatment Trial Results,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 106, no. 3 (2014): dju027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy-Martin, T., Curtis, S., Faries, D., Robinson, S., and Johnston, J. A., “Literature Review on the Representativeness of Randomized Controlled Trial Samples and Implications for the External Validity of Trial Results,” Trials 16, no. 16 (2015): 495.Google Scholar
Gagne, J. J. and Choudhry, N. K., “How Many ‘Me-Too’ Drugs Is Too Many?” JAMA 305, no. 7 (2011): 711-712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, K. P., Ross, J. S., Egilman, D. S., and Krumholz, H. M., “The ADVANTAGE Seeding Trial: A Review of Internal Documents,” Annals of Internal Medicine 149, no. 4 (2008): 251-258.Google Scholar
Yarborough, M. A., “Increasing Enrollment in Drug Trials: The Need for Greater Transparency about the Social Value of Research in Recruitment Efforts,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 88, no. 3 (2013): 442-445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, A. F. and Hoas, H., “Trading Places: What the Research Participant Can Tell the Investigator about Informed Consent,” Journal of Clinical Research and Bioethics 2 (2011): 221.Google Scholar
Fiacco, M. et al., “Head-to-Head Randomized Trials Are Mostly Industry Sponsored and Almost Always Favor the Industry Sponsor,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 68, no. 7 (2015): 811-820.Google Scholar
Barbour, V. et al., “Characterisation of Trials Where Marketing Purposes Have Been Influential in Study Design: A Descriptive Study,” Trials 17, no. 1 (2016): 31Google Scholar
Spencer, J., Carlson, J., and Webster, M. J., “Question of Risk: Medtronic's Lost Infuse Device Study,” Star Tribune, April 10, 2016.Google Scholar