Bracken-Roche Dearbhail, Bell Emily, Macdonald Mary Ellen, Racine Eric
Neuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, 110 Avenue des Pins Ouest, Montréal, QC, H2W 1R7, Canada.
Biomedical Ethics Unit and Division of Experimental Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Feb 7;15(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0164-6.
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.
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.
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.
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.
自1979年在美国《贝尔蒙报告》中引入以来,脆弱性概念在研究伦理指导中一直占据核心地位。它提醒研究人员和研究伦理委员会注意到一些参与者可能面临更高伤害或错误风险的可能性。尽管其具有重要的预期目的且被广泛使用,但由于研究伦理标准中缺乏相关指导,学术文献中对于脆弱性的含义和界定存在相当大的分歧。本研究的目的是评估主要国家和国际研究伦理政策及指南中所使用的脆弱性概念。
我们对11项(5项国家和6项国际)研究伦理政策及指南进行了深入分析,探讨它们对脆弱性的定义、应用、规范依据及影响的讨论。
很少有政策和指南明确界定脆弱性,而是依赖隐含假设以及对弱势群体和脆弱性来源的描述。总体而言,我们发现各项政策中关于脆弱性的内容相当丰富,但需注意这在很大程度上依赖于我们分析对数据所施加的结构。
我们的结果强调政策制定者有必要重新审视研究伦理中关于脆弱性的指导,并且我们建议利益相关者参与过程将有力支持这一努力。