To counter the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, some have proposed accelerating SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development through controlled human infection trials. These trials would involve the deliberate exposure of relatively few young, healthy volunteers to SARS-CoV-2. We defend this proposal against the charge that there is still too much uncertainty surrounding the risks of COVID-19 to responsibly run such a trial.

Hastings Center Report, Volume 52, Issue 3, Page 18-29, May–June 2022.

Modern antiretroviral therapies are capable of suppressing HIV in the bloodstream to undetectable levels. Nonetheless, people living with HIV must maintain lifelong adherence to ART to avoid the re-emergence of the infection. So despite the existence and efficacy of ART, there is still substantial interest in development of a cure. But HIV cure trials can be risky, their success is as of yet unlikely, and the medical gain of being cured is limited against a baseline of ART access. The medical (...) prospect associated with participation in cure research thus look poor. Are the risks and burdens that HIV cure research places on participants so high that it is unethical, at present, to conduct it? In this paper, I answer ‘no’. I start my argument by describing a foundational way of thinking about the ethical justification for regulatory limits on research risk; I then apply this way of thinking to HIV cure trials. In offering this analysis, I confine my attention to studies enrolling competent adults and I also do not consider risks research may pose to third parties or society. Rather, my concern is to engage with the thought that some trials are so risky that performing them is an ethically unacceptable way to treat the participants themselves. I reject this thought and instead argue that there is no level of risk, no matter how high, that inherently mistreats a participant. (shrink)

I argue for a conciliationist treatment of peer disagreement, on the grounds that the evidence that non-conciliatory theorists point to--the evidence that conciliatory-friendly independence principles would rule out--bears a troubling relation to accuracy. Namely, we can anticipate that trying to respond to it is a bad deal with respect to our expected accuracy. I consequently argue that we shouldn't try to respond to it. Instead we should ignore it, and be conciliationists.

Bioethics, Volume 36, Issue 7, Page 757-764, September 2022.

I argue against ‘right reason’ style accounts of how we should manage our beliefs in the face of higher-order evidence. I start from the observation that such views seem to have bad practical consequences when we imagine someone acting on them. I then catalogs ways that Williamson, Weatherson, and Lasonen-Aarnio have tried to block objections based on these consequences; I argue all fail. I then move on to offer my own theoretical picture of a rational ‘should believe,’ and show that, (...) if such a picture is right, it can neatly explain why right reason isn't. I close by arguing that the extent to which anti-luminosity arguments motivate right reason has been overstated; the positive picture developed here, despite rejecting right reason, is nonetheless consistent with luminosity failures. (shrink)

Bioethicists broadly agree that there is a limit to the level of net risk that biomedical research may permissibly impose on participants, even in cases where the potential of that research to improve the health of the population health would be great. Although some may permissibly volunteer to take on some degree of pro‐social risk, no one, not even a willing volunteer, may ever be outright sacrificed for others. One might think this perspective, if correct, makes it effectively impossible to (...) study interventions with high intrinsic risks. But I describe a method – risk dilution – by which an extremely high‐risk intervention can nonetheless be effectively studied in the context of an acceptably low‐risk trial. I then defend risk dilution from objections. (shrink)

Individuals do not have a right to participate in clinical trials. But, they do have a right against being denied participation for inappropriate reasons. Despite the widespread endorsement of these two claims, there has been little discussion regarding which conditions for participation in clinical trials are appropriate and which are inappropriate. The present manuscript attempts to address this gap in the literature. We first describe and then argue against the claim that conditions on enrollment or continued participation are appropriate only (...) when they are needed to answer the scientific question(s) posed by the trial. We then offer an alternative view according to which the appropriateness of conditions depends on whether they help to satisfy the ethical requirements of clinical research. Because these requirements include social value, the present view implies that promoting social value is an acceptable reason to impose conditions on research participation. With this in mind, we explain why it is not coercive to require potential participants to accept conditions on enrollment that promote a trial's social value, even when the participants find those conditions unwelcome. We conclude by evaluating the present proposal's implications for the common practice of requiring participants to agree to the possible use of their leftover biospecimens in a broad range of future research. We argue, contra current regulatory policy, that this practice can be acceptable even when the present trial offers participants the prospect of clinical benefit and the samples are being reserved for future research that is unrelated to the present trial. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 2, February 2020, Page 30-32.