Premium
Equipose and International Human‐Subjects Research
Author(s) -
London Alex John
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
bioethics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.494
H-Index - 55
eISSN - 1467-8519
pISSN - 0269-9702
DOI - 10.1111/1467-8519.00241
Subject(s) - interpretation (philosophy) , similarity (geometry) , license , clinical equipoise , psychology , social psychology , sociology , epistemology , positive economics , political science , computer science , economics , law , artificial intelligence , medicine , philosophy , randomized controlled trial , surgery , image (mathematics) , programming language
This paper examines the role of equipoise in evaluating international research. It distinguishes two possible formulations of the equipoise requirement that license very different evaluations of international research proposals. The interpretation that adopts a narrow criterion of similarity between clinical contexts has played an important role in one recent controversy, but it suffers from a number of problems. An alternative interpretation that adopts a broader criterion of similarity does a better job of avoiding both exploitation of the brute fact of social deprivation and the exploitation of needy populations for the benefit of more well‐off populations. It also holds out the promise of reconciling the need to find interventions that can be employed in developing world contexts with the cluster of moral values that must constrain the way such research is carried out.