Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
unethical and should not be conducted. Removing any elements of 'undue induce-
ment' would not make such risky research ethical.
One might object that certain studies cannot get proper ethical review, espe-
cially in developing countries, where resources for ethical review are very limited
and sometimes even completely absent (Schroeder and Gefenas
2011
, pp. 6-7).
In such a case the individual research participant has to carry the entire burden of
evaluating the risk. But without proper ethical review a study simply should not be
carried out. To proceed with it is unethical in itself. One might press this objection
further and say that if scientific research is nonetheless to be carried out without
proper ethical review, in those cases it would be unethical to offer any benefits
that could amount to undue inducements. It is, unfortunately, true that scientific
research is carried out in some developing countries without proper ethical review,
in disregard of one of the most basic principles of research ethics. There is no pur-
pose, however, in proposing ethical guidelines against inducements for participa-
tion in scientific research that is already blatantly unethical. If the researcher does
not respect the basic principles of research ethics in the first place, further ethical
guidelines are not going to make any difference. (We shall return to the problem of
ethics review in developing countries in
Chap. 8
.)
So to answer the concern that the research participant might be induced to
accept a risk which is otherwise unacceptable, we argue that this can only be so
with a study that is already unethical because of an unacceptable risk-benefit ratio.
It would be unethical to let people volunteer for such a study in any case, and
removing 'undue inducements' does not make it any less unethical.
The third concern is that research participants might participate in research against
their better judgement. This is a vague objection. It could mean that the inducement
effectively invalidates the research participant's consent, but that is the first concern
on the list above, and we have already discussed it. Inducing research participants to
act against their better judgement might mean that they are induced to take unaccep-
table risks, but this is the second concern, and we have answered that as well.
Participating in research against one's better judgement might also mean that
one does something one would not do otherwise. But this is to miss the point of
incentives. Most employed people do things for a monthly pay cheque that they
would not do otherwise. Or people might go to a restaurant they would not nor-
mally eat at if it offers two meals for the price of one. There is nothing inherently
wrong about offering people incentives to do things they would not do otherwise
- that is, not in the absence of an incentive.
The claim that research participants might act against their better judgement can
also be interpreted as amounting to an empirical claim about human psychology.
Large rewards could cloud our judgement: that is, if we are offered large induce-
ments, then our judgement about the risks and benefits might be compromised. As
an empirical claim, this requires an empirical answer. There have not been many
studies on this topic, but the studies that have been conducted did not find that peo-
ple became any worse at judging risks when they were offered large rewards for
taking them (Bentley and Thacker
2004
). The empirical claim that judgement of risk
can be compromised by large rewards has therefore not been supported so far.
