Eyal Nir, Kimmelman Jonathan, Holtzman Lisa G, Lipsitch Marc
Center for Population-Level Bioethics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Biomedical Ethics Unit, Department of Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Clin Trials. 2019 Oct;16(5):450-454. doi: 10.1177/1740774519862783. Epub 2019 Aug 1.
This article informally reviews key research ethics guidelines and regulations, academic scholarship, and research studies and finds wide variety in how they consider risk to bystanders in medical research (namely, non-participants whom studies nevertheless place at risk). Some of these key sources give no or very little consideration to bystanders, while others offer them the utmost protection (greater than they offer study participants). This unsettled frontier would benefit from a deeper investigation of the ethics of protecting research bystanders.
本文非正式地回顾了关键的研究伦理准则和法规、学术成果以及研究性研究，发现它们在如何看待医学研究中对旁观者（即研究虽未将其作为参与者，但却使其面临风险的非参与者）的风险方面存在很大差异。这些关键来源中，有些对旁观者未作考虑或极少考虑，而另一些则给予他们最大程度的保护（比给予研究参与者的保护还要大）。这一尚未解决的前沿领域将受益于对保护研究旁观者伦理的更深入调查。
