Geissler P Wenzel, Kelly Ann, Imoukhuede Babatunde, Pool Robert
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK.
Soc Sci Med. 2008 Sep;67(5):696-707. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.02.004. Epub 2008 May 2.
This paper explores social relations within the 'trial community' (staff and volunteers) of a Malaria Vaccine Trial (MVT), implemented by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in The Gambia between 2001 and 2004. It situates ethical concerns with medical research within the everyday life of scientific fieldwork. Based upon discussions with volunteers and staff, we explore processes of mediation between scientific project and study population, and between formal ethics, local ethical debates and everyday practice. We observe that material contact and substantial transactions, notably of blood and medicine, are central to the construction of the MVT. These transactions are guided by a concrete and relational form of ethics, which contrasts with the abstract and vertical formal ethical principles underwriting the scientific study protocol. The success of the MVT owed much to these kinship-like ethics. One possible conclusion from these observations is that research ethics should be understood, not just as a quasi-legal frame but also as an open, searching movement, much in the same way that kinship is not merely a juridical institution and a prescriptive frame of rules, but a network made through relational work. However, this conclusion raises new problems: by contrasting formal, abstract principles to intimate, immediate relations, and economic justice to personal morality, we accept that the order of medical research is moved further out of the public and political, and into the domains of either quasi-legal claims or of private morality. Irrespective of the undeniable importance of clear-cut rules and of good face-to-face relations, a third essential foundation of medical research ethics is the democratically constituted public sphere, including equitable health services, and transparent institutions to facilitate open debate and regulate particular interests. Ultimately, the ethics of global science can rely neither on principles nor trust but requires citizenship and democratic government.
本文探讨了2001年至2004年间由医学研究理事会(MRC)在冈比亚实施的疟疾疫苗试验(MVT)“试验社区”(工作人员和志愿者)内部的社会关系。它将医学研究中的伦理问题置于科学实地考察的日常生活之中。基于与志愿者和工作人员的讨论,我们探究了科学项目与研究人群之间以及形式伦理、当地伦理辩论与日常实践之间的调解过程。我们观察到,物质接触和大量交易,尤其是血液和药品的交易,是疟疾疫苗试验构建的核心。这些交易受一种具体的、基于关系的伦理形式所引导,这与支撑科学研究方案的抽象的、垂直的形式伦理原则形成对比。疟疾疫苗试验的成功很大程度上归功于这些类似亲属关系的伦理。从这些观察中得出的一个可能结论是,研究伦理不应仅仅被理解为准法律框架,还应被理解为一种开放的、探索性的活动,就如同亲属关系不仅是一种司法制度和规定性的规则框架,更是通过关系性工作形成的网络一样。然而,这一结论引发了新的问题:通过将形式的、抽象的原则与亲密的、直接的关系相对比,以及将经济正义与个人道德相对比,我们承认医学研究的秩序进一步脱离了公共和政治领域,进入了准法律诉求或私人道德的范畴。无论明确规则和良好的面对面关系具有不可否认的重要性,医学研究伦理的第三个重要基础是民主构成的公共领域,包括公平的卫生服务以及促进公开辩论和规范特殊利益的透明机构。最终,全球科学的伦理既不能依赖原则也不能依赖信任,而是需要公民身份和民主治理。