De Ville Kenneth
Department of Medical Humanities, 2S-17 Brody, School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858-4354, USA.
Account Res. 2002 Jan-Mar;9(1):17-43. doi: 10.1080/08989620210355.
This essay examines and analyzes the recent and dramatic series of personal injury lawsuits instituted against those individuals and institutions that conduct and monitor human research. It discusses the social engineering functions of tort litigation, outlines the legal elements and viability of lawsuits against those who conduct and monitor human research, and evaluates and predicts what role tort litigation will play in fulfilling the goals of accountability in the context of human research and human research regulation. In general, tort law engenders two forms of accountability: retrospective and prospective. Retrospective accountability is backward looking, focusing on harms that have already occurred, their culprits, and the reimbursement of individuals for their injuries. Prospective accountability is forward looking in that it encourages actors and institutions to fulfill responsibilities toward individuals in order that harm does not occur, or at least that the risk of harm is decreased. This article argues that research litigation is not, and will probably never become, an effective means of ensuring retrospective accountability in regard to research injuries and ethical violations. Paradoxically though, the current wave of research litigation may serve an important and even key role in encouraging and ensuring prospective accountability.
本文审视并分析了近期针对开展和监督人体研究的个人及机构提起的一系列引人注目的人身伤害诉讼。文中讨论了侵权诉讼的社会工程功能,概述了针对开展和监督人体研究的人员提起诉讼的法律要素及可行性,并评估和预测侵权诉讼在实现人体研究及人体研究监管问责目标方面将发挥何种作用。总体而言,侵权法产生两种问责形式:追溯性问责和前瞻性问责。追溯性问责是向后看的,关注已经发生的伤害、肇事者以及对个人伤害的赔偿。前瞻性问责是向前看的,它鼓励行为者和机构履行对个人的责任,以避免伤害发生,或者至少降低伤害风险。本文认为,研究诉讼并非、而且可能永远不会成为确保对研究伤害和道德违规行为进行追溯性问责的有效手段。然而,矛盾的是,当前这波研究诉讼浪潮可能在鼓励和确保前瞻性问责方面发挥重要甚至关键作用。