Mount Sinai School of Medicine, USA.
Am J Bioeth. 2010 Oct;10(10):19-36. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2010.519233.
Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.
当代研究伦理政策始于对纳粹医生在集中营囚犯身上实施暴行的反思。显然,由于这一经历,现在指导人体研究的政策将知情同意作为监管关注的核心,以保护人体研究对象。我认为,政策设计的选择背景、知情同意的最初优先排序以及几个相关的概念错误,已经使研究伦理误入歧途。本文的目的是梳理这些混淆及其影响,并提供一个简单的框架来考虑人体研究的伦理行为。在讨论过程中,我澄清了一些已经混淆的自主概念,并为知情同意提供了更易理解的理由。我还对现在主导研究伦理的几个教条提出了质疑。这些教条包括:知情同意的首要地位、保护弱势群体、用善行代替研究的社会目的,以及在创新和研究之间引入不可持续的区别。