This paper highlights the need for researchers and research ethics committees to look at the implications of a research study beyond the immediate research question, and the dignity, safety and wellbeing of research subjects, going on to consider whether the results of the study could be detrimental, for example, to more vulnerable groups in society. Although the case studies described come from workplace-based psychosocial research, it is suggested that the lessons drawn from these could be applied more generally.
HarrisJ. Scientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics2005; 31: 242.
2.
BrabinLRobertsSTullyMVailAMcNameeR. Methodological considerations in ethical review — 1. Scientific reviews: what should ethics committees be looking for? Res Ethics Rev2009; 5(1): 28–30.
3.
EdwardsS. The role, remit and function of the research ethics committee — 1. The rationale for ethics review by committee. Res Ethics Rev2009; 5(4): 147–150.
4.
KawakamiN. 5-HTTLR Polymorphism, job stress and work performance in a sample of Japanese workers. ICOH conference paper, South Africa, 2009.
HolmS. There is nothing special about genetic information. In ThompsonAChadwickR (eds). Genetic information: acquisition, access and control. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999: pp. 97–103.
11.
Guidance on ethics for occupational physicians (6th edition). London: Faculty of Occupational Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians, 2006: p. 27.
12.
Faculty of Occupational Medicine, 1999. Op cit.
13.
RawboneRG. Future impact of genetic screening in occupational and environmental medicine. Occup Environ Med1999; 56: 721–724.
14.
See for example: SilverKSharpRR. Ethical considerations in testing workers for the -Glu69 marker of genetic susceptibility to chronic beryllium disease. J Occup Environ Med2006; 48(4): 434–43.
15.
PerkinsRSelbieD. Decreasing employment discrimination against people who have experienced mental health problems in a mental health trust. In CrispA (ed.), Every family in the land: understanding prejudice and discrimination against people with mental illness. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 2004: p 350.
16.
GodfreyR. Categorization of investigation: defining the ethical questions. Res Ethics Rev2006; 2(1): 15–18.
17.
HunterD. The roles of research ethics committees: implications for membership. Res Ethics Rev2007; 3(1): 24–26.
18.
RawboneR. Inequality amongst RECs (editorial). Res Ethics Rev2010; 6(1): 1–2.
19.
HunterD, 2007. Op cit.
20.
Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1031.
21.
Ibid. Schedule 1 Part 2 (3).
22.
MillerPBWeijerC. Fiduciary obligation in clinical research. J Law Med Ethics2006; 34.2: 424–440.
23.
MorreimE. The clinical investigator as a fiduciary: discarding a misguided idea. J Law Med Ethics2005; 33: 586–598.
24.
RussellLJ. Human knowledge: its scope and limits. Philosophy1949; 24: 90, 253–260.
