Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T11:31:43.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alive and Well: The Research Imperative

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Rebecca Dresser
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The government-sponsored Tuskegee syphilis study had a huge impact on U.S. research ethics and policy. Study investigators regarded subjects as “mere means” to their research ends, which led to a variety of ethical violations. Investigators used deception so that subjects would see participation as therapeutic — researchers promoted the therapeutic misconception because this advanced study objectives. The research would produce important information, and this justified lying to research subjects.

Today we see this sort of intentional deception as unjustified no matter how important a study might be. But what do we make of the claim that the syphilis study had value? As James Jones reported, its objectives were to test the prevailing views that syphilis affected blacks and whites differently, and that the disease was less harmful to blacks than whites. U.S. Public Health Service researchers and officials assumed the study had sufficient value to justify not only deceiving subjects, but also depriving them of safe and effective treatment.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , Winter 2012 , pp. 915 - 921
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

Jones, J. H., “The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment,” in Emanuel, E. Grady, C. Crouch, R., and Lie, R. eds., The Oxford Handbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008): 86–96.Google Scholar
Id., at 90. See also Reverby, S., Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2009): at 37–55, discussing this and other scientific problems with the study. In 2011, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues found that the U.S.-sponsored 1940s syphilis studies in Guatemala were scientifically worthless because of their methodological flaws. See Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, “‘Ethically Impossible’ STD Research in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948,” September 2011, at 95, 101, available at <www.bioethics.gov/cms/node/306> (last visited December 7, 2012).Google Scholar
The term “research imperative” comes from an article that theologian Paul Ramsey wrote about the ethics of research involving children. See Callahan, D., What Price Better Health? Hazards of the Research Imperative (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003): at 2–3 (citing Ramsey, P., “The Enforcement of Morals,” Hastings Center Report 6, no. 4 [1976]: 2). Ramsey claimed that Richard McCormick's acceptance of a research imperative explained the latter's permissive stance toward so-called nontherapeutic research on children.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 4.Google Scholar
Id., at 3. See also Callahan, D., “The ‘Research Imperative’: Is Research a Moral Obligation?” President's Council on Bioethics Meeting Transcript, July 24, 2003, available at <http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/transcripts/july03/session1.html> (last visited December 7, 2012). (last visited December 7, 2012).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Id.,+at+3.+See+also+Callahan,+D.,+“The+‘Research+Imperative’:+Is+Research+a+Moral+Obligation?”+President's+Council+on+Bioethics+Meeting+Transcript,+July+24,+2003,+available+at++(last+visited+December+7,+2012).>Google Scholar
See Callahan, , supra note 3, at 1.Google Scholar
Id., at 259–76.Google Scholar
Callahan, D., Taming the Beloved Beast: How Medical Technology Costs Are Destroying Our Health Care System (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 3.Google Scholar
Callahan, , supra note 3, at 270. In his 2003 American Association for the Advancement of Science President's Address, neuroscientist Floyd Bloom acknowledged that U.S. research priorities weren’t consistent with improving the American health system. A research agenda with such an objective would devote more resources to social science-based research on health promotion and disease prevention, he said, “rather than…awaiting the expected evolution of gene-based explanations and interventions based on future genetic discoveries.” See “AAAS President Calls to Restore American Health System,” February 13, 2003, available at <http://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/aaft-apc020303.php> (last visited December 7, 2012). In a similar vein, physician Atul Gawande has remarked on the disproportionate attention we pay to innovations like “personalized genomics, vaccines against heart disease,” and new drugs for cancer, while we pay “disastrously little attention” to ensuring that clinicians have the ability to make good use of those innovations.” Gawande, A., “Personal Best,” The New Yorker, October 3, 2011: 44–53, at 53. (last visited December 7, 2012). In a similar vein, physician Atul Gawande has remarked on the disproportionate attention we pay to innovations like “personalized genomics, vaccines against heart disease,” and new drugs for cancer, while we pay “disastrously little attention” to ensuring that clinicians have the ability to make good use of those innovations.” Gawande, A., “Personal Best,” The New Yorker, October 3, 2011: 44–53, at 53.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Callahan,+,+supra+note+3,+at+270.+In+his+2003+American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science+President's+Address,+neuroscientist+Floyd+Bloom+acknowledged+that+U.S.+research+priorities+weren’t+consistent+with+improving+the+American+health+system.+A+research+agenda+with+such+an+objective+would+devote+more+resources+to+social+science-based+research+on+health+promotion+and+disease+prevention,+he+said,+“rather+than…awaiting+the+expected+evolution+of+gene-based+explanations+and+interventions+based+on+future+genetic+discoveries.”+See+“AAAS+President+Calls+to+Restore+American+Health+System,”+February+13,+2003,+available+at++(last+visited+December+7,+2012).+In+a+similar+vein,+physician+Atul+Gawande+has+remarked+on+the+disproportionate+attention+we+pay+to+innovations+like+“personalized+genomics,+vaccines+against+heart+disease,”+and+new+drugs+for+cancer,+while+we+pay+“disastrously+little+attention”+to+ensuring+that+clinicians+have+the+ability+to+make+good+use+of+those+innovations.”+Gawande,+A.,+“Personal+Best,”+The+New+Yorker,+October+3,+2011:+44–53,+at+53.>Google Scholar
Callahan, D., “Death and the Research Imperative,” New England Journal of Medicine 342, no. 9 (2000): 654–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, , supra note 3, at 253.Google Scholar
Id. Here Callahan is speaking of priority setting at the National Institutes of Health, but his point could be extended to other research funding contexts.Google Scholar
Id. at 251. For more discussion on research priority setting, see Dresser, R., When Science Offers Salvation: Patient Advocacy and Research Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001): at 73–108.Google Scholar
London, A. Kimmelman, J., and Emborg, M., “Beyond Access vs. Protection in Trials of Innovative Therapies,” Science 328, no. 5980 (2010): 829–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Psaty, B. and Ray, W., “FDA Guidance on Of-Label Promotion and the State of the Literature from Sponsors,” JAMA 299, no. 16, (2008): 1949–50. See also Robertson, C., “The Money Blind: How to Stop Industry Bias in Biomedical Science, Without Violating the First Amendment,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 37, nos. 2 & 3 (2011): 358–387; Elliott, C., “Useless Studies, Real Harm,” New York Times, July 28, 2011, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/opinion/useless-pharmaceutical-studies-real-harm.html> (last visited December 7, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarin, D. Tse, T. Williams, R. Catliff, R., and Ide, N., “The ClinicalTrials.gov Results Database – Update and Key Issues,” New England Journal of Medicine 364, no. 9 (2011): 852–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, E., “Unseen World of Clinical Trials Emerges from U.S. Database,” Science 333, no. 6039 (2011): 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naik, G., “Mistakes in Scientific Studies Surge,” Wall Street Journal, August 10, 2011, at A1, A12.Google Scholar
See Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. Alexiou, G. Gouvias, T., and Ioannidis, J., “Life Cycle of Research for Medical Interventions,” Science 321, no. 5894 (2008): 1298–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kimmelman, J., Gene Transfer and the Ethics of First-in-Human Research: Lost in Translation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010) for an extensive discussion of early-stage impediments to translation.Google Scholar
Westfall, J. Mold, J., and Fagnan, L., “Practice-Based Research – ‘Blue Highways’ on the NIH Roadmap,” JAMA 297, no. 4 (2007): 403–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wayne, K. and Glass, K., “The Research Imperative Revisited,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 53, no. 3 (2010): 373–387.Google Scholar
Id., at 384, citing Devolder, K. and Savulescu, J., “The Moral Imperative to Conduct Embryonic Stem Cell and Cloning Research,” Cambridge Quarterly Journal of Healthcare Ethics 15, no. 1 (2006): 7–21. Wayne and Glass describe similar arguments made in McGee, G. and Caplan, A., “The Ethics and Politics of Small Sacrifices in Stem Cell Research,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9, no. 2 (1999): 151–58.Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health, Stem Cell Basics, available at <http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp> (last visited December 7, 2012).+(last+visited+December+7,+2012).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., West, M., The Immortal Cell (New York: Doubleday, 2003).Google Scholar
Dresser, R., “Stem Cell Research as Innovation: Expanding the Ethical and Policy Conversation,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010): 332–341, at 336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
These questions have also been neglected in debates about the ethics of other high-profile research areas, such as gene transfer research. See Callahan, , supra note 3, at 120–21.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Harris, J., “Scientific Research Is a Moral Duty,” Journal of Medical Ethics 31, no. 4 (2005): 242–228; Rhodes, R., “Rethinking Research Ethics,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 1 (2005): 7–28; Schaefer, G. Emanuel, E., and Wertheimer, A., “The Obligation to Participate in Biomedical Research,” JAMA 301 (2009): 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Several of these points are made in Rennie, S., “Viewing Research Participation as a Moral Obligation: In Whose Interests?” Hastings Center Report 41, no. 2 (2011): 40–47; Melo-Martin, I., “A Duty to Participate in Research: Does Social Context Matter?” American Journal of Bioethics 8, no. 10 (2008): 28–36. See also Dresser, R., “Volunteering for Research,” in Dresser, R., ed., Malignant: Medical Ethicists Confront Cancer (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kimmelman, , Gene Transfer, at 90. Kimmelman calls research value the “dark matter of research ethics,” commenting that social value is almost always cited as a justification for research, but “a search of the scholarly literature turns up only a handful of conceptual papers amid thousands on consent, risk, inducement, and privacy.” Id.Google Scholar