See MuellerJ. H., “Ignorance Is Neither Bliss Nor Ethical,”Northwestern University Law Review101, no. 2 (2007): 809–836 for the clearest “capture-theoretic” account of research ethics regulation. Mueller argues that the one clear benefit of increased regulation has been “jobs, jobs, jobs” for the research ethics “industry,” going so far as to wonder “if there may not be nearly as many ethics reviewers, regulators, and staff as there are researchers,” and referring to the research ethics enterprise as a “pyramid scheme” (at 820–821).
2.
“Trying to unravel the mystery of the social sciences' survival in the face of IRB encroachment is a challenge replete with paradoxes and illusions. The exercise demands that we probe the convergent logics of two mutually exclusive things that must somehow co-exist: creativity and regulation.” Later, these authors assert that the survival of any creative research at all must itself be attributed to complicity of researchers with these organs of censorship: “That any creative research at all has survived under the IRB system, distorted as we believe it has become, must be attributed to the dynamics of consensual censorship between investigators and IRBs.” BledsoeC. H.HerinB. S., and GalinskyA. G., “Regulating Creativity: Research and Survival in the IRB Iron Cage,”Northwestern University Law Review101, no. 2 (2007): 593–641, at 597 and 628.
3.
Columbia Law School press release dated November 24, 2009 quoting Philip Hamburger.
MaloneR. E.YergerV. B.McGruderC., and FloelicherE., ‘“It's Like Tuskegee in Reverse’: A Case Study of Ethical Tensions in Institutional Review Board Review of Community-Based Participatory Research,”American Journal of Public Health96, no. 11 (2006): 1914–1919.
7.
WhitneyS. N. and SchneiderC. E., “Viewpoint: A Method to Estimate the Cost in Lives of Ethics Board Review of Biomedical Research,”Journal of Internal Medicine269, no. 4 (2011): 392–406.
8.
See Mueller, supra note 1, at 810.
9.
HymanD. A., “Institutional Review Boards: Is This the Least Worst We Can Do?”Northwestern University Law Review101, no. 2 (2007): 749–774, at 756.
10.
See Mueller, supra note 1, at 832.
11.
MillerF. and WertheimerA., “Facing Up to Paternalism,”Hastings Center Report37, no. 3 (May-June 2007): 24–34; JansenL. A. and WallS., “Paternalism and Fairness in Clinical Research,”Bioethics23, no. 3 (2009): 172–182.
12.
I am not denying that there are vulnerable individuals or groups in the U.S. who may require special protection in the research context. Rather, the point is that the framework that I propose can ground central aspects of the current system of research oversight without recourse to such claims. It is a separate question whether there is a legitimate role for hard or soft paternalism in research ethics, and an answer in the affirmative would provide reasons to bolster or strengthen some of these mechanisms. Because critics often deny a legitimate role for paternalism, it is important to demonstrate whether, how, and which aspects of research oversight can be justified without recourse to such claims.
13.
HardinG., “The Tragedy of the Commons,”Science162, no. 3859 (1968): 1243–1248.
14.
Contrast the high-status of research and researchers, and the way that this refects on institutions that support them, with the low-status of used car salesmen as discussed below.
15.
LondonA. J., “Clinical Research in a Public Health Crisis: The Integrative Approach Managing Uncertainty and Mitigating Confict,”Seton Hall Law Review39, no. 4 (2009): 1173–1202; LondonA. J., “Threats to the Common Good: Biochemical Weapons and Human Subjects Research,”Hastings Center Report33, no. 5 (2003): 17–25; JonasH., “Philosophical Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects,”Daedalus98, no. 2 (1968): 219–247.
16.
GoodmanS. N., “Stopping at Nothing? Some Dilemmas of Data Monitoring in Clinical Trials,”Annals of Internal Medicine146, no. 12 (2007): 882–887.
17.
TempleR. and EllenbergS., “Placebo-Controlled Trials and Active-Control Trials in the Evaluation of New Treatments: Part 1: Ethical and Scientific Issues,”Annals of Internal Medicine133no. 6 (2000): 455–463.
18.
SennS., “The Misunderstood Placebo,”Applied Clinical Trials10, no. 5 (2001): 40–45.
19.
PottsM., “Thinking About Vaginal Microbicide Testing,”American Journal of Public Health90, no. 2 (2000): 188–190; LeonA. C., “Can Placebo Controls Reduce the Number of Non-Responders in Clinical Trials? A Power–Analytic Perspective,”Clinical Therapeutics23, no. 4 (2001): 596–607; FreedmanB.WeijerC., and GlassK. C., “Placebo Orthodoxy in Clinical Research I: Empirical and Methodological Myths,”Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics24, no. 3 (1996): 243–251.
20.
MillerF. G. and GradyC., “The Ethical Challenge of Infection-Inducing Challenge Experiments,”Clinical Infectious Diseases33, no. 7 (2001): 1028–1033.
21.
For recent revelations of the lengths that researchers from the U.S. Public Health Services were willing to go to in order to infect research subjects with Syphilis in the 1940s, see ReverbyS. M., “‘Normal Exposure’ and Inoculation Syphilis: A PHS ‘Tuskegee’ Doctor in Guatemala, 1946–48,”Journal of Policy History23, no. 1 (2011): 6–28.
22.
The delay, inconvenience, and possible anxiety caused in research subjects by informed consent is a recurring theme in research scandals of the post-World-War II era. For an excellent case study see ArrasJ. D., “The Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Case,” in EmanuelE. J.GradyC., and CrouchR., eds., The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008): At 73–79.
23.
Indeed, one of the factors that enabled the Tuskegee syphilis study to persist over a 40 year period was the commitment of public health researchers to the idea that understanding the natural history of the disease was of fundamental importance. This professional curiosity persisted even after this information lost any clinical value it may once have had. Moreover, those involved in the study maintained its importance even once it was clear that the study itself had little or no social value. See JonesJ. H., Bad Blood, rev. ed. (New York: Free Press, 1993); JonesJ. H., “The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment,” in EmanuelE. J.GradyC., and CrouchR., eds., The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008): At 86–96.
24.
BeecherH. E., “Ethics and Clinical Research,”New England Journal of Medicine274, no. 24 (1966): 1354–1360, at 1354.
25.
25. Id., at 1354–1355.
26.
26. Id., at 1354.
27.
27. Id., at 1355.
28.
28. Id., at 1360.
29.
For related arguments, see MossJ., “If Institutional Review Boards Were Declared Unconstitutional, They Would Have to Be Reinvented,”Northwestern University Law Review101, no. 2 (2007): 801–807.
30.
SuntharalingamG.PerryM. R., and WardS., “Cytokine Storm in a Phase 1 Trial of the Anti-CD28 Monoclonal Antibody TGN1412,”New England Journal of Medicine355, no. 10 (2006): 1–11.
31.
DingwallR., “The Ethical Case Against Ethical Regulation in Humanities and Social Science Research,”21st Century Society3, no. 1 (2008): 1–12, at 3.
32.
AkerlofG. A., “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,”Quarterly Journal of Economics84, no. 3 (1970): 488–500.
33.
For a discussion of recent cases in which trial data were not published, or were published only years after studies were completed, see FauberJ., “BMJ: Discipline Researchers Who Withhold Research Results,”MedPage Today, January 3, 2012, available at <http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/ClinicalTrials/30482> (last visited December 4, 2012).
34.
LondonA. J.KimmelmanJ., and EmborgM. E., “Beyond Access vs. Protection in Trials of Innovative Therapies,”Science328, no. 5980 (2010): 829–830.
35.
CarpenterD., “Confdence Games: How Does Regulation Constitute Markets?” in BalleisenE. and MossD., eds., Government and Markets: Toward a New Theory of Regulation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009): At 164–190.
36.
See London, supra note 34.
37.
Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996): at 273.
38.
On the link between regulation relating to the FDA and civic republican values, see Carpenter, supra note 35.
39.
Compare to Philip Pettit's articulation of the civic republican conception of freedom and equal standing: “Being unfree consists in being subject to arbitrary sway: being subject to the potentially capricious will or the potentially idiosyncratic judgment of another. Freedom involves emancipation from any such subordination, liberation from any such dependency. It requires the capacity to stand eye to eye with your fellow citizens, in a shared awareness that none of you has the power of arbitrary interference over another.” PettitP., Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997): at 5.
40.
The term “soldiers of science” is used by JonesJames H. to describe the reasoning of the U.S. Public Health Service when it prevented the men who were the unknowing participants in a scientific study from attempting to join the U.S. Military to fight during World War II. Rather than being soldiers in the military, if these men were to be put in harm's way, it would be as soldiers of science. See Jones (2008), supra note 23.
41.
DresserR., “Wanted: Single, White Male for Medical Research,”Hastings Center Report22, no. 1 (1992): 24–29, at 26–27; WeijerC. and CrouchR. A., “Why Should We Include Women and Minorities in Randomized Controlled Trials?”Journal of Clinical Ethics100, no. 2 (1999): 79–87.
42.
45 C.F.R. § 46.111(a)2 (2009).
43.
LondonA. J.KimmelmanJ., and CarlisleB., “Rethinking Research Ethics: The Case of Postmarketing Trials,”Science336, no. 6081 (2012): 544–545.