Through mystery, literature reveals to us the Great Unknown. While we are absorbed by the matters at hand with the present enactment of our life, groping for clues to handle them, it is through literature that we discover the hidden strings underlying their networks. Hence our fascination with literature. But there is more. The creative act of the human being, its proper focus, holds the key to the Sezam of life: to the great metaphysical/ontopoietic questions which literature may disclose. First, (...) it leads us to the sublimal grounds of transformation in the human soul, source of the specifically human significance of life (Analecta Husserliana, Volume III, XIX, XXIII, XXVII) Second, it leads us to the unveiling of the hidden workings of life in the twilight of knowing in a dialectic between The Visible and the Invisible, (Volume LXXV, 2002, Analecta Husserliana) down to the ontopoietic truth. (Volume LXXVI, 2002, Analecta Husserliana) This prying into the unknown which provokes the human being as he or she attempts to conquer, step by step, a space of existence, finds its culmination in the phenomenon of mystery as the subject of the present collection. Its formulation brings us to the greatest question of all: the enigmatic solidarity -in-distinctiveness of human cognition and existence. Papers are written by: Tony E. Afejuku, Gary Backhaus, Paul G. Beidler, Matthew J. Duffy, Raffaela Giovagnoli, Jennifer Anna Gosetti-Ferencei, Matti Itkonen, Lawrence Kimmel, Catherine Malloy, Vladimir L. Marchenkov, Nancy Mardas, Howard Pearce, Bernadette Prochaska, Victor Gerald Rivas, M.J. Sahlani, Dennis Skocz, Jadwiga S. Smith, Mara Stafecka, Max Statkiewicz, Mariola Sulkowska, Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, Leon U. Weinman, Tim Weiss. (shrink)

The practice of paying research subjects for participating inclinical trials has yet to receive an adequate moral analysis.Dickert and Grady argue for a wage payment model in whichresearch subjects are paid an hourly wage based on that ofunskilled laborers. If we accept this approach, what follows?Norms for just working conditions emerge from workplacelegislation and political theory. All workers, includingpaid research subjects under Dickert and Grady''s analysis,have a right to at least minimum wage, a standard work week,extra pay for overtime hours, (...) a safe workplace, no faultcompensation for work-related injury, and union organization.If we accept that paid research subjects are wage earners likeany other, then the implications for changes to current practiceare substantial. (shrink)

Some authors have argued that research subjects in developing nations should be considered vulnerable and that this designation can help to ensure that investigators take extra steps to protect the...

Objective—To explore the opinions of unpaid healthy volunteers on the payment of research subjects.Design—Prospective cohort.Setting—Southern Alberta, Canada.Participants—Medically eligible persons responding to recruiting advertisements for a randomised vaccine trial were invited to take part in a study of informed consent at the point at which they formally consented or refused trial participation. Of 72 invited, 67 returned questionnaires at baseline and 54 at follow-up.Outcome measures—Proportions of persons who agreed or disagreed with three close-ended statements on the payment of research subjects; themes (...) and categories identified by content analysis of responses to an open-ended question.Results—A minority agreed with paying either patient or healthy volunteer participants. Opinions did not change over time. Participants' comments addressed: benefits and drawbacks to research participation; benefits and drawbacks to paying research participants; conditions under which payment of research subjects would be acceptable, and the nature of acceptable recognition. Acceptable conditions were to improve problematic recruitment, to reimburse costs, and to recognise participants, particularly for their time investment. Both non-monetary and monetary recognition of volunteers were thought to be appropriate.Conclusions—Most unpaid volunteers disagreed with paying research participants. The themes arising from their comments are similar to those that have been raised by ethicists and suggest that recognising the time and effort of participants should receive greater emphasis than presently occurs. (shrink)

There is an alleged tension between undue inducement and exploitation in research trials. This paper considers claims that increasing the benefits to research subjects enrolled in international, externally-sponsored clinical trials should be avoided on the grounds that it may result in the undue inducement of research subjects. This article contributes to the debate about exploitation versus undue inducement by introducing an analysis of the available empirical research into research participants' motivations and the influence of payments on research subjects' behaviour and (...) risk assessment. Admittedly, the available research in this field is limited, but the research that has been conducted suggests that financial rewards do not distort research subjects' behaviour or blind them to the risks involved with research. Therefore, I conclude that research sponsors should prioritise the prevention of exploitation in international research by providing greater benefits to research participants. (edited). (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 2, February 2020, Page 38-41.

: In light of information uncovered about human radiation experiments conducted during the Cold War, an important charge for the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments was to assess the current state of protections for human research subjects. This assessment was designed to enhance the Committee's ability to make informed recommendations for the improvement of future policies and practices for the protection of research subjects. The Committee's examination of current protections revealed great improvement over those from the past, yet some (...) problems remain. Although the data collected by the Committee highlight specific areas in need of attention, the Committee's work should be viewed in part as the beginning of a series of ongoing assessments of the adequacy and effectiveness of the protections afforded to human subjects. (shrink)

The protection of human research subjects in clinical studies is regulated by international guidelines and national laws. Research Ethics Committees play an important role here, as they review the documentation for clinical studies under consideration of ethical aspects. This documentation includes an exclusion or wash-out period which designates when study subjects may not have participated in another study or be allowed to take part in a future one within a specified time period. However not all research subjects comply with their (...) applicable exclusion period. This prohibited multi-participation in clinical studies is known as ‘research subject tourism,’ ‘clinical study overlapping’, or ‘guinea-pigging’. This practice brings with it additional risks for the research subject and the integrity of the research being conducted. No comprehensive data are available to demonstrate exactly how many research subjects participate in overlapping multiple studies. However, the number of them who ‘travel’ from one study to another seems to be significant. Preventing this practice is a matter of concern for ethics committees, but the responsibility for protecting research subjects in this respect apart from approving the ethics of a wash-out period and recruiting from a specific pool or database of patients is solely that of the investigating physician. But how can the investigating physician be certain that a research subject complies with their exclusion period? An international data bank for research subjects who have participated, or are participating, in clinical studies, is a measure that would serve to prevent prohibited multi-participation in clinical studies and thereby protect the research subject, the investigating physician and their institution. VIP Check, International, which was founded by the author in 1990, is an example of such a data bank. This article examines the existence of prohibited multi-participation in clinical studies, the additional risk this practice of itself poses to the research subjects and the integrity of clinical studies, and how this practice might best be reduce or even eliminated through use of an international data bank of research subjects such as that of VIP Check. (shrink)

This article analyzes and discusses the notion of including multivocality as an autoethnographic method to: (a) illustrate that there is no single and temporally-fixed voice that a researcher possesses, (b) unfix identity in a way that exposes the fluid nature of identity as it moves through particular contexts, and (c) deconstruct competing tensions within the autoethnographer as s/he connects the personal self to the social context. After providing a short, multivocal vignette based on the author’s previous work assignment as (...) a teacher educator in Kosovo, the author offers a reflective analysis of his approach. His analysis includes a critical discussion around the benefits and challenges of using such a method in autoethnography. The author concludes that research-oriented institutions might be resistant to validating multivocality as research practice given the myopic view that “voice” is linear, categorizable, and one-dimensional. In this way, the use of multivocality in autoethnography can also be understood as a way to liberate research practices from oppressive institutional rules and restrictions. (shrink)

Offering cash payments to research subjects is a common recruiting method but there is significant debate about whether and in what amount such payments are appropriate. This paper is concerned with exploitation and whether there should be a lower limit on the amount researchers can pay their subjects. When subjects participate in research as a way to make money, fairness requires that researchers pay them a fair wage. This call for the establishment of a lower limit meets resistance in two (...) places: (1) denial that the payments offered by researchers are wages for participation; and (2) concern about undue inducement. This paper critically examines these arguments for and against a lower limit. It shows that the need for a lower limit cannot be avoided by adopting a non-wage payment model and that concerns about undue inducement are unjustified in all trials except those that present greater than minimal risk. This analysis suggests the following compromise position: there should be an unconditional lower limit on payment amounts so that researchers cannot offer less than a fair wage, and when researchers cannot satisfy this limit because fairness requires a problematically large payment, then researchers should offer no payment at all. (shrink)

Offering cash payments to research subjects is a common recruiting method, but this practice continues to be controversial because of its potential to compromise the protection of human subjects. Some critics question whether researchers should be allowed to offer money at all, citing concerns about commodification of the research subject, invalidation of study results, and increased risks to subjects. Other critics are comfortable with the idea of monetary payments but question how much researchers can pay their subjects, citing concerns about (...) undue inducement, crowding out, and monetary exploitation. Focusing only on the amount researchers can pay their subjects, this paper argues that the federal regulations and guidelines should implement a standard payment formula. It argues for a wage payment model, and critically examines three candidates for a base wage: the nonfarm production wage, the FLSA minimum wage, and a living wage. (shrink)

Unequal treatment of human research subjects is a significant ethical concern, because justice in research involving human subjects requires equal protection of rights and equal protection from harm and exploitation. Disputes sometimes arise concerning the issue of unequal treatment of research subjects. Allegedly unequal treatment occurs when subjects are treated differently and there is a genuine dispute concerning the appropriateness of equal treatment. Patently unequal treatment occurs when subjects are treated differently and there is not a genuine dispute about the (...) appropriateness of equal treatment. Allegedly unequal treatment will probably always occur in research with human subjects due to disagreements about fundamental questions of justice. The best way to deal with allegedly unequal treatment is to promote honest and open discussions of the issues at stake. Research regulations can help to minimize patently unequal treatment by providing rules for investigators, ethical review boards, institutions, and sponsors to follow. However, patently unequal treatment may still occur because the regulations are subject to interpretation. Federal agencies have provided interpretive guidance that can help promote consistent review and oversight of human subjects research. Additional direction may be needed on topics that are not adequately covered by current guidance or regulations. International guidelines can help promote equal treatment of human subjects around the globe. While minor variations in the treatment of research subjects should be tolerated and even welcomed, major ones (i.e. those that significantly impact human rights or welfare) should be avoided or minimized. (shrink)

One of the founding principles of research ethics is that subjects should be treated equally. In the words of the Belmont Report, “equals ought to be treated equally.” This principle does not imply that all subjects should be treated exactly the same. Rather, subjects who are similar in relevant respects should receive similar treatment. Clinical status is clearly relevant to determining how subjects should be treated. Greater resources should be devoted to subjects who have worse diseases. In contrast, fame is (...) irrelevant. Subjects should not receive greater resources simply because they are famous. A more challenging question, one that pervades clinical research yet has received almost no attention in the literature, is whether subjects' level of scientific importance is relevant to determining how much support they should receive. (shrink)

ABSTRACT A complex problem exists about how to promote the best interests of children as a group through research while protecting the rights and welfare of individual research subjects. The Nuremberg Code forbids studies without consent, eliminating most children as subjects, and the Declaration of Helsinki disallows non-therapeutic research on non-consenting subjects. Both codes are unreasonably restrictive. Another approach is represented by the Council for the International Organizations of Medical Science, the U.S. Federal Research Guidelines, and many other national policies. (...) They allow research ethics committees or institutional review boards to authorize studies with acceptable balances of likely benefits and harms, but neither clarify how to balance them nor explain the meaning of pivotal concepts, like “minimal risk.” Paths to the improvement of balancing or consequentialist approaches include improving standardizing of risk assessment, rejecting crude utilitarianism, identifying and justifying normative or moral judg-ments, and acknowledging extra-regulatory thresholds and deontological or non-negotiable duties to children. (shrink)

As Next Generation Sequencing technologies are increasingly implemented in biomedical research and care, the number of study participants and patients who ask for release of their genomic raw data is set to increase. This raises the question whether research participants and patients have a legal and moral right to receive their genomic raw data and, if so, how this right should be implemented into practice. In a first step we clarify some central concepts such as “raw data”; in a second (...) step we sketch the international legal framework. The third step provides an extensive ethical analysis which comprehends two parts: an evaluation of whether there is a prima facie moral right to receive one’s raw data, and a contextualization and discussion of the right in light of potentially conflicting interests and rights of the data subject herself and third parties; in a last fourth step we emphasize the main practical consequences of the ethical analyses and propose recommendations for the release of raw data. In several legislations like the new European General Data Protection Regulation, patients do in principle have the right to receive their raw data. However, the procedural implementation of this right and whether it involves genetic counselling is at the discretion of the Member States. Even more questions remain with respect to the research context. The ethical analysis suggests that patients and research subjects have a moral right to receive their genomic raw data and addresses aspects which are also of relevance for the legal discussion such as the costs of release of raw data and its impact on academic freedom. Taking into account the specific nature and implications of genomic raw data and the contexts of research and health care, several concerns and potentially conflicting interests of the data subjects themselves and involved researchers, physicians, biomedical institutions and relatives arise. Instead of using them to argue in favor of restrictions of the data subjects’ legal and moral right to genomic raw data, the concerns should be addressed through provision of information and other measures. To this end, we propose relevant recommendations. (shrink)

Professional standards in medicine and psychology treat concurrent sexual relationships with patients as violations of fiduciary trust, and they sometimes rule out sexual relationships even after a clinical relationship is over. These standards also rule out sex with research subjects who are also patients, but what about nonclinical relationships where there are not always parallels to the standards of clinical medicine? One way to treat sex in nonclinical research relationships is to treat it as sex is treated elsewhere among adults, (...) as a matter of individual choice and responsibility. Alternately, one could ask oversight bodies to draw lines between research that can safely accommodate sexual relationships and research that cannot. One could even ask researchers to avoid all concurrent sexual relationships with their research participants, as happens in clinical medicine. Each of these options has drawbacks that undermine its value as a definitive solution. The deficiencies of these options highlight the need for a professional code of conduct for nonclinical researchers. (shrink)

This article is based on a qualitative longitudinal study that followed the subjective experiences of both people living with dementia and their family members during the early stages of the illness. The purpose of this article is to describe and reflect on the ethical and methodological issues that occurred during data collection. The article focuses on the situation of the person with dementia and the family member and the role of the researcher when conducting the research interviews. Based on (...) the results of this study, conducting research interviews with people with dementia and their family members poses several ethical and methodological challenges that must be addressed. In doing so, ethically sound dementia-specific research methods will be actively developed enhancing our understanding of living with dementia and providing new insights into the care of people with dementia and their family members. (shrink)

Interventions performed on a pregnant woman's body can affect the fetus in multiple ways. Such effects can be harmful to beneficial to the fetus. Unfortunately, the effects of new drugs and compoun...

The use of experimental animals, mostly rodents, in biomedical research and especially in oncology and immunology should be acknowledged with respect, recognizing the contribution of animal experimentation in the fascinating scientific progress in these disciplines of research. It is an obligation of the investigator to justify the scientific and ethical aspects of each study requiring the use of animals. The international guiding principles for using animals in biomedical research are well defined and have been distributed worldwide by the International Council (...) for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) since 1956, when this Organization was founded. In Poland the ICLAS philosophy and principles are highly respected and were implemented firstly by the members of the Commission on Biology of Experimental Animals appointed in 1962 by the Department of Medical Science of the Polish Academy of Science in Warsaw. Animal Protection Acts, first proclaimed in 1928 were gradually modified and improved. Actual legislation (enacted in 1997, 2003 and 2005) is consistent with EU Directives (86/609/EEC) and follows the internationally recommended principles that include ICLAS guidelines concerning animal welfare and care condition in biomedical research. The problem of “alternative methods” is briefly discussed. Dr. Donald Boisvert, CCAC — Canadian Council on Animal Care. (shrink)

The voluntary and informed consent of subjects has been the central focus of concern in research reviews, overshadowing the importance of all other considerations. The Nuremberg Code, with its rights-based protection of the subject's autonomy above all else, made it difficult to justify research with no intended benefit when subjects are incompetent to make a valid informed choice to participate. Subsequent codes providing for research with incompetent subjects followed the lead of Nuremberg, substituting the informed authorization of a proxy for (...) the informed consent of the subject. (shrink)

There is strong opposition in bioethics to paying research subjects. This paper, building on earlier work, gives arguments on behalf of the permissibility of payment. It develops an analogy between payment to research subjects. And payment and regulation in the labour market Few seriously oppose payment in the labour market, and the reasons to allow payment carry over to payment to research subjects. The paper then considers and rejects an alleged disanalogy, that research is special in that it involves subjects’ (...) bodies. At greater length, it assesses the argument from the gift relationship: that the value of giving is good reason not to extend market norms into research. This argument has some force in pointing out the unattractiveness of some market motivations, but those who offer it usually overlook the coordination advantages of the market. Still, the gift relationshp argument against payment has something going for it, which is more than can be said for virtually all the other major anti-payment arguments. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 6, June 2019, Page 73-75.

From the very beginning of civilization, children are made the subject matter of many social and clinical researches. Due to the vulnerabilities of physical frailty and mental immaturity, children’s interests and rights need to be protected from the risks associated with any kind of research. Recently, there has been increased global concern towards the involvement of children in research for the protection of their rights by the ethical research practice. It emphasizes upon the ongoing nature of ethical considerations that ethical (...) issues need to be considered throughout the research process and even the post research ethical issues are equally significant. The study explores some of the major ethical issues that arise in research involving children during and after the research in terms of the best interests of the children.Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015 Vol.6 (1): 6-10. (shrink)

This article discusses some ethical issues that can arise when researchers decide to increase the amount of payment offered to research subjects to boost enrollment. Would increasing the amount of payment be unfair to subjects who have already consented to participate in the study? This article considers how five different models of payment—the free market model, the wage payment model, the reimbursement model, the appreciation model, and the fair benefits model—would approach this issue. The article also considers several practical problems (...) related to changing the amount of payment, including determining whether there is enough money in the budget to offer additional payments to subjects who have already enrolled, ascertaining how difficult it will be to re-contact subjects, and developing a plan of action for responding to subjects who find out they are receiving less money and demand an explanation. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Protecting Human Research SubjectsThe Office for Protection from Research RisksJoan Paine Porter (bio)The office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR), located within the National Institutes of Health, has two divisions: Human Subject Protections and Animal Welfare. This article will address the overall responsibilities and current projects relating to human subject protections.OPRR implements the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) regulations for the protection of human subjects (45 CFR (...) 46 (1991)). These regulations fulfill the responsibilities set forth in the Public Health Service (PHS) Act with regard to institutional review boards (IRB) and other protections for human subjects involved in biomedical and behavioral research conducted or supported by HHS. The PHS Act also mandates a program to clarify ethical issues in biomedical research involving human subjects and to address violations of the rights of human subjects of research (P.L. 99-158 (1985)).OPRR staff negotiate assurances of compliance with institutions conducting Federally-supported research involving human subjects. The assurances describe the policies and procedures each institution will follow to fulfill the requirements of the regulations, including specific IRB composition and functions.In addition, OPRR cosponsors with the Food and Drug Administration and awardee institutions a series of regional workshops that address human subject protections issues. These are attended by IRB members, institutional officials, research investigators, and others involved with human subject protections.Current ActivitiesNumerous activities are underway in OPRR. The following describes only a few of the initiatives and studies aimed at helping develop policies and procedures to protect human subjects of research."Points to Consider" DocumentsOPRR is currently working with the National Center for Human Genome Research (NCHGR) to develop a "points to consider" document for IRBs and others involved in large genetic pedigree studies. Many questions have emerged [End Page 279] on topics such as how subjects should be recruited, with whom information should be shared about others in the family, social risks of disclosure in employment and insurance, the circumstances and timing of informing subjects about study results, and involvement of children. OPRR and NCHGR hope to assemble a group this fall to review and refine the points that are now being developed jointly. A conference in South Carolina organized by the American Association for Advancement in the Sciences entitled "Project on the Ethical and Legal Implications of Genetic Testing," helped generate advice, and identified some of the more controversial issues in design and conduct of genetic research that involves large groups of family members.Another "points to consider" effort concerns enrollment of women and minorities in research. The PHS has established a policy that members of these groups must be included in research projects unless there are valid scientific justifications for their exclusion which can be made on a project by project basis (ADAMHA/NIH Policy 1990; NIH/ADAMHA Policy 1990). OPRR has commissioned several scholarly papers to help in developing "points to consider" for IRBs as they balance issues of equitable selection of subjects and protection of these selected individuals. Concerns about enrolling women of childbearing age in research that may be harmful to a fetus, and liability issues frequently dominate discussion in this area. The papers will address ethical, legal, and statistical aspects of enrollment of minorities and women as well as provide a description of various practices and roles of IRBs in addressing goals of fair selection of participants and appropriate protections.OPRR is also working with the PHS Panel on Women, Adolescents and Children to produce a document, also in the form of "points to consider" guidance, concerning enrollment of children who are wards of the state in HIV-related research. Subpart D of the regulations for the protection of human subjects (45 CFR 46) specifically addresses research involving children who are wards of the state, including the special protections that must be provided. State and local officials who have authority to enroll foster care children in research have indicated a desire to obtain advice in this area.The IRB GuidebookA major project that is now being completed under contract to the Poynter Center at Indiana University is the IRB Guidebook. It will revise and expand the current IRB Guidebook produced in the 1980s... (shrink)