University of Business & Technology Artificial Intelligence Essay

  • Within the challenge/technology you chose, think of one or more ways that some specific engineering product/system or application of the product/system might raise an ethical issue that could affect human beings who use the product/system or are somehow affected by it or by someone else’s use of it.
  • •Youcan use your imagination—the engineering product/system may not yet exist. Thiscan be a “what if” scenario. (“What if everyone had a computer chip embedded intheir big toe that would carry all their medical information and all thecomputer passwords?” Note: don’t use this one J)
  • please find the attached Doc 32 for more details
  • Scanned by Easy Scanner
    Scanned by Easy Scanner
    Office of the Secretary
    Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human
    Subjects of Research
    The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
    Biomedical and Behavioral Research
    April 18, 1979
    AGENCY: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
    ACTION: Notice of Report for Public Comment.
    SUMMARY: On July 12, 1974, the National Research Act (Pub. L. 93-348) was signed into law, there-by creating the
    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. One of the
    charges to the Commission was to identify the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical
    and behavioral research involving human subjects and to develop guidelines which should be followed to assure that
    such research is conducted in accordance with those principles. In carrying out the above, the Commission was
    directed to consider: (i) the boundaries between biomedical and behavioral research and the accepted and routine
    practice of medicine, (ii) the role of assessment of risk-benefit criteria in the determination of the appropriateness of
    research involving human subjects, (iii) appropriate guidelines for the selection of human subjects for participation in
    such research and (iv) the nature and definition of informed consent in various research settings.
    The Belmont Report attempts to summarize the basic ethical principles identified by the Commission in the course of
    its deliberations. It is the outgrowth of an intensive four-day period of discussions that were held in February 1976 at
    the Smithsonian Institution’s Belmont Conference Center supplemented by the monthly deliberations of the
    Commission that were held over a period of nearly four years. It is a statement of basic ethical principles and
    guidelines that should assist in resolving the ethical problems that surround the conduct of research with human
    subjects. By publishing the Report in the Federal Register, and providing reprints upon request, the Secretary intends
    that it may be made readily available to scientists, members of Institutional Review Boards, and Federal employees.
    The two-volume Appendix, containing the lengthy reports of experts and specialists who assisted the Commission in
    fulfilling this part of its charge, is available as DHEW Publication No. (OS) 78-0013 and No. (OS) 78-0014, for sale by
    the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
    Unlike most other reports of the Commission, the Belmont Report does not make specific recommendations for
    administrative action by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Rather, the Commission recommended that
    the Belmont Report be adopted in its entirety, as a statement of the Department’s policy. The Department requests
    public comment on this recommendation.
    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
    Biomedical and Behavioral Research
    Members of the Commission
    Kenneth John Ryan, M.D., Chairman, Chief of Staff, Boston Hospital for Women.
    Joseph V. Brady, Ph.D., Professor of Behavioral Biology, Johns Hopkins University.
    Robert E. Cooke, M.D., President, Medical College of Pennsylvania.
    Dorothy I. Height, President, National Council of Negro Women, Inc.
    Albert R. Jonsen, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Bioethics, University of California at San Francisco.
    Patricia King, J.D., Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center.
    Karen Lebacqz, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Christian Ethics, Pacific School of Religion.
    *** David W. Louisell, J.D., Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley.
    Donald W. Seldin, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas at
    *** Eliot Stellar, Ph.D., Provost of the University and Professor of Physiological Psychology, University of
    *** Robert H. Turtle, LL.B., Attorney, VomBaur, Coburn, Simmons & Turtle, Washington, D.C.
    *** Deceased.
    Table of Contents
    Ethical Principles and Guidelines for Research Involving Human Subjects
    A. Boundaries Between Practice and Research
    B. Basic Ethical Principles
    1. Respect for Persons
    2. Beneficence
    3. Justice
    C. Applications
    1. Informed Consent
    2. Assessment of Risk and Benefits
    3. Selection of Subjects
    Ethical Principles & Guidelines for Research Involving Human Subjects
    Scientific research has produced substantial social benefits. It has also posed some troubling ethical
    questions. Public attention was drawn to these questions by reported abuses of human subjects in
    biomedical experiments, especially during the Second World War. During the Nuremberg War Crime Trials,
    the Nuremberg code was drafted as a set of standards for judging physicians and scientists who had
    conducted biomedical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. This code became the prototype of
    many later codes [1] intended to assure that research involving human subjects would be carried out in an
    ethical manner.
    The codes consist of rules, some general, others specific, that guide the investigators or the reviewers of
    research in their work. Such rules often are inadequate to cover complex situations; at times they come into
    conflict, and they are frequently difficult to interpret or apply. Broader ethical principles will provide a basis
    on which specific rules may be formulated, criticized and interpreted.
    Three principles, or general prescriptive judgments, that are relevant to research involving human subjects
    are identified in this statement. Other principles may also be relevant. These three are comprehensive,
    however, and are stated at a level of generalization that should assist scientists, subjects, reviewers and
    interested citizens to understand the ethical issues inherent in research involving human subjects. These
    principles cannot always be applied so as to resolve beyond dispute particular ethical problems. The
    objective is to provide an analytical framework that will guide the resolution of ethical problems arising from
    research involving human subjects.
    This statement consists of a distinction between research and practice, a discussion of the three basic
    ethical principles, and remarks about the application of these principles.
    Part A: Boundaries Between Practice & Research
    A. Boundaries Between Practice and Research
    It is important to distinguish between biomedical and behavioral research, on the one hand, and the practice
    of accepted therapy on the other, in order to know what activities ought to undergo review for the protection
    of human subjects of research. The distinction between research and practice is blurred partly because both
    often occur together (as in research designed to evaluate a therapy) and partly because notable departures
    from standard practice are often called “experimental” when the terms “experimental” and “research” are not
    carefully defined.
    For the most part, the term “practice” refers to interventions that are designed solely to enhance the wellbeing of an individual patient or client and that have a reasonable expectation of success. The purpose of
    medical or behavioral practice is to provide diagnosis, preventive treatment or therapy to particular
    individuals [2]. By contrast, the term “research’ designates an activity designed to test an hypothesis, permit
    conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge (expressed, for
    example, in theories, principles, and statements of relationships). Research is usually described in a formal
    protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of procedures designed to reach that objective.
    When a clinician departs in a significant way from standard or accepted practice, the innovation does not, in
    and of itself, constitute research. The fact that a procedure is “experimental,” in the sense of new, untested
    or different, does not automatically place it in the category of research. Radically new procedures of this
    description should, however, be made the object of formal research at an early stage in order to determine
    whether they are safe and effective. Thus, it is the responsibility of medical practice committees, for
    example, to insist that a major innovation be incorporated into a formal research project [3].
    Research and practice may be carried on together when research is designed to evaluate the safety and
    efficacy of a therapy. This need not cause any confusion regarding whether or not the activity requires
    review; the general rule is that if there is any element of research in an activity, that activity should undergo
    review for the protection of human subjects.
    Part B: Basic Ethical Principles
    B. Basic Ethical Principles
    The expression “basic ethical principles” refers to those general judgments that serve as a basic justification
    for the many particular ethical prescriptions and evaluations of human actions. Three basic principles,
    among those generally accepted in our cultural tradition, are particularly relevant to the ethics of research
    involving human subjects: the principles of respect of persons, beneficence and justice.
    1. Respect for Persons. — Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions: first,
    that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished
    autonomy are entitled to protection. The principle of respect for persons thus divides into two separate moral
    requirements: the requirement to acknowledge autonomy and the requirement to protect those with
    diminished autonomy.
    An autonomous person is an individual capable of deliberation about personal goals and of acting under the
    direction of such deliberation. To respect autonomy is to give weight to autonomous persons’ considered
    opinions and choices while refraining from obstructing their actions unless they are clearly detrimental to
    others. To show lack of respect for an autonomous agent is to repudiate that person’s considered
    judgments, to deny an individual the freedom to act on those considered judgments, or to withhold
    information necessary to make a considered judgment, when there are no compelling reasons to do so.
    However, not every human being is capable of self-determination. The capacity for self-determination
    matures during an individual’s life, and some individuals lose this capacity wholly or in part because of
    illness, mental disability, or circumstances that severely restrict liberty. Respect for the immature and the
    incapacitated may require protecting them as they mature or while they are incapacitated.
    Some persons are in need of extensive protection, even to the point of excluding them from activities which
    may harm them; other persons require little protection beyond making sure they undertake activities freely
    and with awareness of possible adverse consequence. The extent of protection afforded should depend
    upon the risk of harm and the likelihood of benefit. The judgment that any individual lacks autonomy should
    be periodically reevaluated and will vary in different situations.
    In most cases of research involving human subjects, respect for persons demands that subjects enter into
    the research voluntarily and with adequate information. In some situations, however, application of the
    principle is not obvious. The involvement of prisoners as subjects of research provides an instructive
    example. On the one hand, it would seem that the principle of respect for persons requires that prisoners not
    be deprived of the opportunity to volunteer for research. On the other hand, under prison conditions they
    may be subtly coerced or unduly influenced to engage in research activities for which they would not
    otherwise volunteer. Respect for persons would then dictate that prisoners be protected. Whether to allow
    prisoners to “volunteer” or to “protect” them presents a dilemma. Respecting persons, in most hard cases, is
    often a matter of balancing competing claims urged by the principle of respect itself.
    2. Beneficence. — Persons are treated in an ethical manner not only by respecting their decisions and
    protecting them from harm, but also by making efforts to secure their well-being. Such treatment falls under
    the principle of beneficence. The term “beneficence” is often understood to cover acts of kindness or charity
    that go beyond strict obligation. In this document, beneficence is understood in a stronger sense, as an
    obligation. Two general rules have been formulated as complementary expressions of beneficent actions in
    this sense: (1) do not harm and (2) maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms.
    The Hippocratic maxim “do no harm” has long been a fundamental principle of medical ethics. Claude
    Bernard extended it to the realm of research, saying that one should not injure one person regardless of the
    benefits that might come to others. However, even avoiding harm requires learning what is harmful; and, in
    the process of obtaining this information, persons may be exposed to risk of harm. Further, the Hippocratic
    Oath requires physicians to benefit their patients “according to their best judgment.” Learning what will in
    fact benefit may require exposing persons to risk. The problem posed by these imperatives is to decide
    when it is justifiable to seek certain benefits despite the risks involved, and when the benefits should be
    foregone because of the risks.
    The obligations of beneficence affect both individual investigators and society at large, because they extend
    both to particular research projects and to the entire enterprise of research. In the case of particular projects,
    investigators and members of their institutions are obliged to give forethought to the maximization of benefits
    and the reduction of risk that might occur from the research investigation. In the case of scientific research in
    general, members of the larger society are obliged to recognize the longer term benefits and risks that may
    result from the improvement of knowledge and from the development of novel medical, psychotherapeutic,
    and social procedures.
    The principle of beneficence often occupies a well-defined justifying role in many areas of research involving
    human subjects. An example is found in research involving children. Effective ways of treating childhood
    diseases and fostering healthy development are benefits that serve to justify research involving children -even when individual research subjects are not direct beneficiaries. Research also makes it possible to
    avoid the harm that may result from the application of previously accepted routine practices that on closer
    investigation turn out to be dangerous. But the role of the principle of beneficence is not always so
    unambiguous. A difficult ethical problem remains, for example, about research that presents more than
    minimal risk without immediate prospect of direct benefit to the children involved. Some have argued that
    such research is inadmissible, while others have pointed out that this limit would rule out much research
    promising great benefit to children in the future. Here again, as with all hard cases, the different claims
    covered by the principle of beneficence may come into conflict and force difficult choices.
    3. Justice. — Who ought to receive the benefits of research and bear its burdens? This is a question of
    justice, in the sense of “fairness in distribution” or “what is deserved.” An injustice occurs when some benefit
    to which a person is entitled is denied without good reason or when some burden is imposed unduly.
    Another way of conceiving the principle of justice is that equals ought to be treated equally. However, this
    statement requires explication. Who is equal and who is unequal? What considerations justify departure
    from equal distribution? Almost all commentators allow that distinctions based on experience, age,
    deprivation, competence, merit and position do sometimes constitute criteria justifying differential treatment
    for certain purposes. It is necessary, then, to explain in what respects people should be treated equally.
    There are several widely accepted formulations of just ways to distribute burdens and benefits. Each
    formulation mentions some relevant property on the basis of which burdens and benefits should be
    distributed. These formulations are (1) to each person an equal share, (2) to each person according to
    individual need, (3) to each person according to individual effort, (4) to each person according to societal
    contribution, and (5) to each person according to merit.
    Questions of justice have long been associated with social practices such as punishment, taxation and
    political representation. Until recently these questions have not generally been associated with scientific
    research. However, they are foreshadowed even in the earliest reflections on the ethics of research
    involving human subjects. For example, during the 19th and early 20th centuries the burdens of serving as
    research subjects fell largely upon poor ward patients, while the benefits of improved medical care flowed
    primarily to private patients. Subsequently, the exploitation of unwilling prisoners as research subjects in
    Nazi concentration camps was condemned as a particularly flagrant injustice. In this country, in the 1940’s,
    the Tuskegee syphilis study used disadvantaged, rural black men to study the untreated course of a disease
    that is by no means confined to that population. These subjects were deprived of demonstrably effective
    treatment in order not to interrupt the project, long after such treatment became generally available.
    Against this historical background, it can be seen how conceptions of justice are relevant to research
    involving human subjects. For example, the selection of research subjects needs to be scrutinized in order
    to determine whether some classes (e.g., welfare patients, particular racial and ethnic minorities, or persons
    confined to institutions) are being systematically selected simply because of their easy availability, their
    compromised position, or their manipulability, rather than for reasons directly related to the problem being
    studied. Finally, whenever research supported by public funds leads to the development of therapeutic
    devices and procedures, justice demands both that these not provide advantages only to those who can
    afford them and that such research should not unduly involve persons from groups unlikely to be among the
    beneficiaries of subsequent applications of the research.
    Part C: Applications
    C. Applications
    Applications of the general principles to the conduct of research leads to consideration of the following
    requirements: informed consent, risk/benefit assessment, and the selection of subjects of research.
    1. Informed Consent. — Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are
    capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is
    provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.
    While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and
    possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process
    can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.
    Information. Most codes of research establish specific items for disclosure intended to assure that subjects
    are given sufficient information. These items generally include: the research procedure, their purposes, risks
    and anticipated benefits, alternative procedures (where therapy is involved), and a statement offering the
    subject the opportunity to ask questions and to withdraw at any time from the research. Additional items
    have been proposed, including how subjects are selected, the person responsible for the research, etc.
    However, a simple listing of items does not answer the question of what the standard should be for judging
    how much and what sort of information should be provided. One standard frequently invoked in medical
    practice, namely the information commonly provided by practitioners in the field or in the locale, is
    inadequate since research takes place precisely when a common understanding does not exist. Another
    standard, currently popular in malpractice law, requires the practitioner to reveal the information that
    reasonable persons would wish to know in order to make a decision regarding their care. This, too, seems
    insufficient since the research subject, being in essence a volunteer, may wish to know considerably more
    about risks gratuitously undertaken than do patients who deliver themselves into the hand of a clinician for
    needed care. It may be that a standard of “the reasonable volunteer” should be proposed: the extent and
    nature of information should be such that persons, knowing that the procedure is neither necessary for their
    care nor perhaps fully understood, can decide whether they wish to participate in the furthering of
    knowledge. Even when some direct benefit to them is anticipated, the subjects should understand clearly the
    range of risk and the voluntary nature of participation.
    A special problem of consent arises where informing subjects of some pertinent aspect of the research is
    likely to impair the validity of the research. In many cases, it is sufficient to indicate to subjects that they are
    being invited to participate in research of which some features will not be revealed until the research is
    concluded. In all cases of research involving incomplete disclosure, such research is justified only if it is
    clear that (1) incomplete disclosure is truly necessary to accomplish the goals of the research, (2) there are
    no undisclosed risks to subjects that are more than minimal, and (3) there is an adequate plan for debriefing
    subjects, when appropriate, and for dissemination of research results to them. Information about risks
    should never be withheld for the purpose of eliciting the cooperation of subjects, and truthful answers should
    always be given to direct questions about the research. Care should be taken to distinguish cases in which
    disclosure would destroy or invalidate the research from cases in which disclosure would simply
    inconvenience the investigator.
    Comprehension. The manner and context in which information is conveyed is as important as the
    information itself. For example, presenting information in a disorganized and rapid fashion, allowing too little
    time for consideration or curtailing opportunities for questioning, all may adversely affect a subject’s ability to
    make an informed choice.
    Because the subject’s ability to understand is a function of intelligence, rationality, maturity and language, it
    is necessary to adapt the presentation of the information to the subject’s capacities. Investigators are
    responsible for ascertaining that the subject has comprehended the information. While there is always an
    obligation to ascertain that the information about risk to subjects is complete and adequately comprehended,
    when the risks are more serious, that obligation increases. On occasion, it may be suitable to give some oral
    or written tests of comprehension.
    Special provision may need to be made when comprehension is severely limited — for example, by
    conditions of immaturity or mental disability. Each class of subjects that one might consider as incompetent
    (e.g., infants and young children, mentally disable patients, the terminally ill and the comatose) should be
    considered on its own terms. Even for these persons, however, respect requires giving them the opportunity
    to choose to the extent they are able, whether or not to participate in research. The objections of these
    subjects to involvement should be honored, unless the research entails providing them a therapy
    unavailable elsewhere. Respect for persons also requires seeking the permission of other parties in order to
    protect the subjects from harm. Such persons are thus respected both by acknowledging their own wishes
    and by the use of third parties to protect them from harm.
    The third parties chosen should be those who are most likely to understand the incompetent subject’s
    situation and to act in that person’s best interest. The person authorized to act on behalf of the subject
    should be given an opportunity to observe the research as it proceeds in order to be able to withdraw the
    subject from the research, if such action appears in the subject’s best interest.
    Voluntariness. An agreement to participate in research constitutes a valid consent only if voluntarily given.
    This element of informed consent requires conditions free of coercion and undue influence. Coercion occurs
    when an overt threat of harm is intentionally presented by one person to another in order to obtain
    compliance. Undue influence, by contrast, occurs through an offer of an excessive, unwarranted,
    inappropriate or improper reward or other overture in order to obtain compliance. Also, inducements that
    would ordinarily be acceptable may become undue influences if the subject is especially vulnerable.
    Unjustifiable pressures usually occur when persons in positions of authority or commanding influence -especially where possible sanctions are involved — urge a course of action for a subject. A continuum of
    such influencing factors exists, however, and it is impossible to state precisely where justifiable persuasion
    ends and undue influence begins. But undue influence would include actions such as manipulating a
    person’s choice through the controlling influence of a close relative and threatening to withdraw health
    services to which an individual would otherwise be entitled.
    2. Assessment of Risks and Benefits. — The assessment of risks and benefits requires a
    careful arrayal of relevant data, including, in some cases, alternative ways of obtaining the benefits sought in
    the research. Thus, the assessment presents both an opportunity and a responsibility to gather systematic
    and comprehensive information about proposed research. For the investigator, it is a means to examine
    whether the proposed research is properly designed. For a review committee, it is a method for determining
    whether the risks that will be presented to subjects are justified. For prospective subjects, the assessment
    will assist the determination whether or not to participate.
    The Nature and Scope of Risks and Benefits. The requirement that research be justified on the basis of a
    favorable risk/benefit assessment bears a close relation to the principle of beneficence, just as the moral
    requirement that informed consent be obtained is derived primarily from the principle of respect for persons.
    The term “risk” refers to a possibility that harm may occur. However, when expressions such as “small risk”
    or “high risk” are used, they usually refer (often ambiguously) both to the chance (probability) of
    experiencing a harm and the severity (magnitude) of the envisioned harm.
    The term “benefit” is used in the research context to refer to something of positive value related to health or
    welfare. Unlike, “risk,” “benefit” is not a term that expresses probabilities. Risk is properly contrasted to
    probability of benefits, and benefits are properly contrasted with harms rather than risks of harm.
    Accordingly, so-called risk/benefit assessments are concerned with the probabilities and magnitudes of
    possible harm and anticipated benefits. Many kinds of possible harms and benefits need to be taken into
    account. There are, for example, risks of psychological harm, physical harm, legal harm, social harm and
    economic harm and the corresponding benefits. While the most likely types of harms to research subjects
    are those of psychological or physical pain or injury, other possible kinds should not be overlooked.
    Risks and benefits of research may affect the individual subjects, the families of the individual subjects, and
    society at large (or special groups of subjects in society). Previous codes and Federal regulations have
    required that risks to subjects be outweighed by the sum of both the anticipated benefit to the subject, if any,
    and the anticipated benefit to society in the form of knowledge to be gained from the research. In balancing
    these different elements, the risks and benefits affecting the immediate research subject will normally carry
    special weight. On the other hand, interests other than those of the subject may on some occasions be
    sufficient by themselves to justify the risks involved in the research, so long as the subjects’ rights have been
    protected. Beneficence thus requires that we protect against risk of harm to subjects and also that we be
    concerned about the loss of the substantial benefits that might be gained from research.
    The Systematic Assessment of Risks and Benefits. It is commonly said that benefits and risks must be
    “balanced” and shown to be “in a favorable ratio.” The metaphorical character of these terms draws
    attention to the difficulty of making precise judgments. Only on rare occasions will quantitative techniques be
    available for the scrutiny of research protocols. However, the idea of systematic, nonarbitrary analysis of
    risks and benefits should be emulated insofar as possible. This ideal requires those making decisions about
    the justifiability of research to be thorough in the accumulation and assessment of information about all
    aspects of the research, and to consider alternatives systematically. This procedure renders the assessment
    of research more rigorous and precise, while making communication between review board members and
    investigators less subject to misinterpretation, misinformation and conflicting judgments. Thus, there should
    first be a determination of the validity of the presuppositions of the research; then the nature, probability and
    magnitude of risk should be distinguished with as much clarity as possible. The method of ascertaining risks
    should be explicit, especially where there is no alternative to the use of such vague categories as small or
    slight risk. It should also be determined whether an investigator’s estimates of the probability of harm or
    benefits are reasonable, as judged by known facts or other available studies.
    Finally, assessment of the justifiability of research should reflect at least the following
    considerations: (i)Brutal or inhumane treatment of human subjects is never morally justified. (ii) Risks should
    be reduced to those necessary to achieve the research objective. It should be determined whether it is in
    fact necessary to use human subjects at all. Risk can perhaps never be entirely eliminated, but it can often
    be reduced by careful attention to alternative procedures. (iii) When research involves significant risk of
    serious impairment, review committees should be extraordinarily insistent on the justification of the risk
    (looking usually to the likelihood of benefit to the subject — or, in some rare cases, to the manifest
    voluntariness of the participation). (iv) When vulnerable populations are involved in research, the
    appropriateness of involving them should itself be demonstrated. A number of variables go into such
    judgments, including the nature and degree of risk, the condition of the particular population involved, and
    the nature and level of the anticipated benefits. (v) Relevant risks and benefits must be thoroughly arrayed
    in documents and procedures used in the informed consent process.
    3. Selection of Subjects. — Just as the principle of respect for persons finds expression in the
    requirements for consent, and the principle of beneficence in risk/benefit assessment, the principle of justice
    gives rise to moral requirements that there be fair procedures and outcomes in the selection of research
    Justice is relevant to the selection of subjects of research at two levels: the social and the individual.
    Individual justice in the selection of subjects would require that researchers exhibit fairness: thus, they
    should not offer potentially beneficial research only to some patients who are in their favor or select only
    “undesirable” persons for risky research. Social justice requires that distinction be drawn between classes of
    subjects that ought, and ought not, to participate in any particular kind of research, based on the ability of
    members of that class to bear burdens and on the appropriateness of placing further burdens on already
    burdened persons. Thus, it can be considered a matter of social justice that there is an order of preference
    in the selection of classes of subjects (e.g., adults before children) and that some classes of potential
    subjects (e.g., the institutionalized mentally infirm or prisoners) may be involved as research subjects, if at
    all, only on certain conditions.
    Injustice may appear in the selection of subjects, even if individual subjects are selected fairly by
    investigators and treated fairly in the course of research. Thus injustice arises from social, racial, sexual and
    cultural biases institutionalized in society. Thus, even if individual researchers are treating their research
    subjects fairly, and even if IRBs are taking care to assure that subjects are selected fairly within a particular
    institution, unjust social patterns may nevertheless appear in the overall distribution of the burdens and
    benefits of research. Although individual institutions or investigators may not be able to resolve a problem
    that is pervasive in their social setting, they can consider distributive justice in selecting research subjects.
    Some populations, especially institutionalized ones, are already burdened in many ways by their infirmities
    and environments. When research is proposed that involves risks and does not include a therapeutic
    component, other less burdened classes of persons should be called upon first to accept these risks of
    research, except where the research is directly related to the specific conditions of the class involved. Also,
    even though public funds for research may often flow in the same directions as public funds for health care,
    it seems unfair that populations dependent on public health care constitute a pool of preferred research
    subjects if more advantaged populations are likely to be the recipients of the benefits.
    One special instance of injustice results from the involvement of vulnerable subjects. Certain groups, such
    as racial minorities, the economically disadvantaged, the very sick, and the institutionalized may continually
    be sought as research subjects, owing to their ready availability in settings where research is conducted.
    Given their dependent status and their frequently compromised capacity for free consent, they should be
    protected against the danger of being involved in research solely for administrative convenience, or because
    they are easy to manipulate as a result of their illness or socioeconomic condition.
    [1] Since 1945, various codes for the proper and responsible conduct of human experimentation in medical research have been
    adopted by different organizations. The best known of these codes are the Nuremberg Code of 1947, the Helsinki Declaration of
    1964 (revised in 1975), and the 1971 Guidelines (codified into Federal Regulations in 1974) issued by the U.S. Department of
    Health, Education, and Welfare Codes for the conduct of social and behavioral research have also been adopted, the best known
    being that of the American Psychological Association, published in 1973.
    [2] Although practice usually involves interventions designed solely to enhance the well-being of a particular individual, interventions
    are sometimes applied to one individual for the enhancement of the well-being of another (e.g., blood donation, skin grafts, organ
    transplants) or an intervention may have the dual purpose of enhancing the well-being of a particular individual, and, at the same
    time, providing some benefit to others (e.g., vaccination, which protects both the person who is vaccinated and society generally).
    The fact that some forms of practice have elements other than immediate benefit to the individual receiving an intervention,
    however, should not confuse the general distinction between research and practice. Even when a procedure applied in practice may
    benefit some other person, it remains an intervention designed to enhance the well-being of a particular individual or groups of
    individuals; thus, it is practice and need not be reviewed as research.
    [3] Because the problems related to social experimentation may differ substantially from those of biomedical and behavioral
    research, the Commission specifically declines to make any policy determination regarding such research at this time. Rather, the
    Commission believes that the problem ought to be addressed by one of its successor bodies.

    Calculate your order
    Pages (275 words)
    Standard price: $0.00
    Client Reviews
    Our Guarantees
    100% Confidentiality
    Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.
    Original Writing
    We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.
    Timely Delivery
    No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.
    Money Back
    If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

    Calculate the price of your order

    You will get a personal manager and a discount.
    We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
    Total price:
    Power up Your Academic Success with the
    Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.
    Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.
    WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
    Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
    👋 Hi, how can I help?