How Learning about the History of Research Ethics Has Impacted my View of Biomedical Research

Learning about the history of research ethics has impacted my view of biomedical research. I have learned that researchers should uphold various ethical standards when dealing with human subjects. Firstly, researchers should embrace informed consent. Informed consent acknowledges that participants are autonomous individuals (UNLV.edu, n.d.). Participants should be informed about the nature of the study, its merits, and potential risks (AVAC.org, n.d.). Also, participants are allowed to withdraw from the study without any explanation. Researchers should ensure that all participants are informed and understand these provisions. All participants should participate in the study voluntarily without coercion (UNLV.edu, n.d.). Informed consent is harmonious with the provisions of the Nuremberg Code (UNLV.edu, n.d.). The Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the medical experiments conducted by German physicians are examples of instances in which participants informed consent was breached (UNLV.edu, n.d.).

Secondly, biomedical research should uphold beneficence. In this context, the study should not harm human subjects (UNLV.edu, n.d.). Researchers should focus on obtaining optimal benefits and minimizing potential risks (AVAC.org, n.d.). This can be accomplished by conducting an elaborate risk-benefit analysis. Studies that pose significant risks to the participants should be avoided or done with precaution. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study breached the ethical principle of beneficence. Researchers did not provide the participants with evidence-based treatment (penicillin) (UNLV.edu, n.d.). The intentional omission of medical treatment resulted in the deaths of many participants. Similarly, the medical experiments by German physicians breached beneficence because they resulted in deaths and permanent deformities (UNLV.edu, n.d.).

Thirdly, biomedical research should uphold justice. In this context, researchers should maintain fairness when recruiting participants and when selecting the study setting (UNLV.edu, n.d.). The inclusion criteria should not entail vulnerable participants who are not likely to decline to participate (UNLV.edu, n.d.). Also, the primary focus should not be on the availability of participants. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study breached justice. It targeted low-income African Americans (UNLV.edu, n.d.). This resulted in diminished autonomy because this population was unlikely to decline the free medical examinations offered to participants.

When I reviewed the literature for my PICOT question, I discovered that researchers protect the rights of human subjects. To begin with, the study by Baune et al. (2021) involved twenty-nine participants. The researchers obtained written informed consent from all participants. Participants were free to exit the study at any point. Furthermore, the researchers upheld the privacy and confidentiality of the participants by maintaining their anonymity. The researchers excluded people with mental retardation because they were likely to have diminished autonomy. The study by Gericke et al. (2021) targeted university students. The researchers obtained informed consent from all participants. Furthermore, they maintained the privacy and confidentiality of participants by assigning them pseudonyms. Furthermore, participants were allowed to withdraw from the study at any point. The study by Renn et al. (2019) targeted American adults. The researchers upheld the privacy and confidentiality of the participants. Furthermore, they obtained informed consent from all participants. The studies upheld beneficence because they did not predispose participants to any risk.

The other studies did not involve human subjects directly. They utilized data from online databases. These studies protected human subjects’ rights because they maintained all participants’ anonymity. As such, today’s researchers adhere to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki that guide the actions of people involved in biomedical research (UNLV.edu, n.d.).

References

AVAC.org. (n.d.). Principles of Research Ethics. https://www.avac.org/principles-research-ethics

Baune, B. T., Florea, I., Ebert, B., Touya, M., Ettrup, A., Hadi, M., & Ren, H. (2021). Patient expectations and experiences of antidepressant therapy for major depressive disorder: A qualitative study. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 17, 2995–3006. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S325954