Stark Laura, Campbell Nancy D
Center for Medicine, Health and Society, Vanderbilt University, PMB #351665, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN 37235-1665, USA.
Department of Science and Technology Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 West 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180, USA.
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2014 Dec;48 Pt B:218-30. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2014.07.011. Epub 2014 Oct 2.
In 1960, J. Anthony Morris, a molecular biologist at the US National Institutes of Health conducted one of the only non-therapeutic clinical studies of the cancer virus SV40. Morris and his research team aimed to determine whether SV40 was a serious harm to human health, since many scientists at the time suspected that SV40 caused cancer in humans based on evidence from in vivo animal studies and experiments with human tissue. Morris found that SV40 had no significant effect but his claim has remained controversial among scientists and policymakers through the present day--both on scientific and ethical grounds. Why did Morris only conduct one clinical study on the cancer-causing potential of SV40 in healthy humans? We use the case to explain how empirical evidence and ethical imperatives are, paradoxically, often dependent on each other and mutually exclusive in clinical research, which leaves answers to scientific and ethical questions unsettled. This paper serves two goals: first, it documents a unique--and uniquely important--study of clinical research on SV40. Second, it introduces the concept of "the stowaway," which is a special type of contaminant that changes the past in the present moment. In the history of science, stowaways are misfortunes that nonetheless afford research that otherwise would have been impossible specifically by creating new pasts. This case (Morris' study) and concept (the stowaway) bring together history of science and philosophy of history for productive dialog.
1960年,美国国立卫生研究院的分子生物学家J. 安东尼·莫里斯开展了仅有的几项关于癌症病毒SV40的非治疗性临床研究之一。莫里斯和他的研究团队旨在确定SV40是否对人类健康构成严重危害,因为当时许多科学家根据体内动物研究和人体组织实验的证据怀疑SV40会导致人类患癌。莫里斯发现SV40没有显著影响,但他的说法至今在科学家和政策制定者中仍存在争议——无论是在科学还是伦理方面。为什么莫里斯只对健康人类进行了一项关于SV40致癌潜力的临床研究?我们用这个案例来解释经验证据和伦理要求如何在临床研究中既相互依赖又相互排斥,这使得科学和伦理问题的答案悬而未决。本文有两个目标:第一,记录一项关于SV40临床研究的独特且极为重要的研究。第二,引入“偷渡者”的概念,这是一种特殊类型的污染物,它在当下改变了过去。在科学史上,偷渡者是不幸之事,但却能通过创造新的过去提供原本不可能进行的研究。这个案例(莫里斯的研究)和概念(偷渡者)将科学史和历史哲学结合起来进行富有成效的对话。