The concept of 'vulnerability' in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines

Dearbhail Bracken-Roche, Emily Bell, Mary Ellen Macdonald, Eric Racine, Dearbhail Bracken-Roche, Emily Bell, Mary Ellen Macdonald, Eric Racine

Abstract

Background: The concept of vulnerability has held a central place in research ethics guidance since its introduction in the United States Belmont Report in 1979. It signals mindfulness for researchers and research ethics boards to the possibility that some participants may be at higher risk of harm or wrong. Despite its important intended purpose and widespread use, there is considerable disagreement in the scholarly literature about the meaning and delineation of vulnerability, stemming from a perceived lack of guidance within research ethics standards. The aim of this study was to assess the concept of vulnerability as it is employed in major national and international research ethics policies and guidelines.

Methods: We conducted an in-depth analysis of 11 (five national and six international) research ethics policies and guidelines, exploring their discussions of the definition, application, normative justification and implications of vulnerability.

Results: Few policies and guidelines explicitly defined vulnerability, instead relying on implicit assumptions and the delineation of vulnerable groups and sources of vulnerability. On the whole, we found considerable richness in the content on vulnerability across policies, but note that this relies heavily on the structure imposed on the data through our analysis.

Conclusions: Our results underscore a need for policymakers to revisit the guidance on vulnerability in research ethics, and we propose that a process of stakeholder engagement would well-support this effort.

Keywords: Ethics policy; Research ethics; Research oversight; Research policy; Vulnerability; Vulnerable populations.

References

    1. Coleman CH. Vulnerability as a regulatory category in human subject research. J Law Med Ethics. 2009;37:12–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00346.x.
    1. ten Have H. Respect for human vulnerability: the emergence of a new principle in bioethics. J Bioeth Inq. 2015;12:395–408. doi: 10.1007/s11673-015-9641-9.
    1. Eriksson S, Höglund AT, Helgesson G. Do ethical guidelines give guidance? A critical examination of eight ethics regulations. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2008;17:15–29.
    1. Solomon SR. Protecting and respecting the vulnerable: existing regulations or further protections? Theor Med Bioeth. 2013;34:17–28. doi: 10.1007/s11017-013-9242-8.
    1. Hurst SA. Vulnerability in research and health care; describing the elephant in the room? Bioethics. 2008;22:191–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00631.x.
    1. Luna F. Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: layers not labels. Int J Fem Approaches Bioeth. 2009;2:121–139. doi: 10.2979/FAB.2009.2.1.121.
    1. Lange MM, Rogers W, Dodds S. Vulnerability in research ethics: a way forward. Bioethics. 2013;27:333–340. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12032.
    1. Rogers W. Vulnerability and bioethics. In: Mackenzie C, Rogers W, Dodds S, editors. Vulnerability: new essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 60–87.
    1. DuBois JM, Beskow L, Campbell J, Dugosh K, Festinger D, Hartz S, James R, Lidz C. Restoring balance: a consensus statement on the protection of vulnerable research participants. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:2220–2225. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300757.
    1. Bell E, Racine E, Chiasson P, Dufourcq-Brana M, Dunn LB, Fins JJ, et al. Beyond consent in research: revisiting vulnerability in deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2014;23:361–8.
    1. Schroeder D, Gefenas E. Vulnerability: too vague and too broad? Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2009;18:113–21.
    1. Levine C, Faden R, Grady C, Hammerschmidt D, Eckenwiler L, Sugarman J, et al. The limitations of “vulnerability” as a protection for human research participants. Am J Bioethics. 2004;4:44–49. doi: 10.1080/15265160490497083.
    1. Nickel PJ. Vulnerable populations in research: the case of the seriously ill. Theor Med Bioeth. 2006;27:245–264. doi: 10.1007/s11017-006-9000-2.
    1. Luna F, Vanderpoel S. Not the usual suspects: addressing layers of vulnerability. Bioethics. 2013;27:325–332. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12035.
    1. Zimmerman E, Racine E. Ethical issues in the translation of social neuroscience: a policy analysis of current guidelines for public dialogue in human research. Account Res. 2012;19:27–46.
    1. International Compilation of Human Research Standards. Office for Human Research Protections, Rockville. 2015. . Accessed 1 May 2015.
    1. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Fortaleza, Brazil: 2013. . Accessed 7 January 2015.
    1. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: CIOMS. 2002. . Accessed 7 January 2015.
    1. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. UNESCO: 2005. . Accessed 7 January 2015.
    1. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official J L 121:34-44. . Accessed 21 July 2015.
    1. Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. Official J L 158:1-76. . Accessed 21 July 2015.
    1. ICH Steering Committee. ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline. In Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6. 1996.
    1. The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Updated March 2014). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government; 2007.
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans, December 2014. . Accessed 6 January 2015.
    1. Department of Health. Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care, second edition. COI; 2005. . Accessed 6 January 2015.
    1. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1979.
    1. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. § 46 (2001). . Accessed 7 January 2015.
    1. Kipnis K. Seven vulnerabilities in the pediatric research subject. Theor Med Bioeth. 2003;24:107–120. doi: 10.1023/A:1024646912928.
    1. Rogers W, Ballantyne A. Special populations: vulnerability and protection. RECIIS. 2008;2:S30–S40.
    1. Kipnis K. Vulnerability in research subjects: a bioethical taxonomy. In: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, editor. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Bethesda: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 2001. pp. G1–G13.
    1. Schrems BM. Informed consent, vulnerability and the risks of group-specific attribution. Nurs Ethics. 2014;21:829–843. doi: 10.1177/0969733013518448.
    1. Macklin R. Bioethics, vulnerability, and protection. Bioethics. 2003;17:472–486. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00362.
    1. Zion D, Gillam L, Loff B. The Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS and the ethics of research on vulnerable populations. Nat Med. 2000;6:615–617. doi: 10.1038/76174.
    1. Bracken-Roche D, Bell E, Racine E. The “vulnerability” of psychiatric research participants: why this research ethics concept needs to be revisited. Can J Psychiat. 2016;61:335–339. doi: 10.1177/0706743716633422.
    1. Wrigley A. An eliminativist approach to vulnerability. Bioethics. 2015;29:478–487. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12144.
    1. Loue S, Loff B. Is there a universal understanding of vulnerability? Experiences with Russian and Romanian trainees in research ethics. J Empir Res Hum Res. 2013;8:17–27. doi: 10.1525/jer.2013.8.5.17.
    1. Sengupta S, Lo B, Strauss RP, Eron J, Gifford AL. How researchers define vulnerable populations in HIV/AIDS clinical trials. AIDS and Behav. 2010;14:1313–1319. doi: 10.1007/s10461-010-9785-x.
    1. Deslauriers C, Bell E, Palmour N, Pike B, Doyon J, Racine E. Perspectives of Canadian researchers on ethics review of neuroimaging research. J Empir Res Hum Res. 2010;5:49–66. doi: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.1.49.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit