Hastings Cent Rep. 2018 May;48(3):28-30. doi: 10.1002/hast.852.
In a carefully argued article, Haley K. Sullivan and Benjamin E. Berkman address the important question of whether investigators have a duty to report incidental findings to research participants in low-resource settings. They suggest that the duty to rescue offers the most plausible justification for the duty to return incidental findings, and they explore the implications of this duty for the context of research in low-resource settings. While I think they make valuable headway on an important problem, in this commentary, I identify a significant difference between the paradigmatic rescue case and the return of incidental findings in low-resource settings. This difference, I suggest, implies that their framework may be too narrow in scope. If investigators (and their sponsors) really wish to fulfill their duty to rescue, they must consider factors that are left out of Sullivan and Berkman's framework.
在一篇精心论证的文章中，Haley K. Sullivan 和 Benjamin E. Berkman 探讨了一个重要问题，即研究人员是否有责任向资源匮乏环境中的研究参与者报告偶发发现。他们认为，救援义务为回报偶发发现的义务提供了最合理的理由，并探讨了这一义务对资源匮乏环境下研究背景的影响。虽然我认为他们在一个重要问题上取得了有价值的进展，但在这篇评论中，我指出了典范救援案例和资源匮乏环境下回报偶发发现之间的一个显著差异。我认为，这种差异意味着他们的框架可能过于狭隘。如果研究人员（及其资助者）真的希望履行救援义务，他们就必须考虑到 Sullivan 和 Berkman 框架中遗漏的因素。
