Research Exceptionalism

• Published in: American journal of bioethics Vol. 10; no. 8; pp. 45 - 54
• Main Authors: Wilson, James, Hunter, David
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Taylor & Francis Group 06.08.2010
• Subjects: Clinical Trials as Topic - adverse effects; Clinical Trials as Topic - ethics; Clinical Trials as Topic - legislation & jurisprudence; Decision Making; ethics committees; Ethics Committees, Research; Ethics, Research; Human Experimentation - ethics; Human Experimentation - legislation & jurisprudence; human subjects research; Humans; Informed Consent - ethics; Legislation as Topic - ethics; Legislation as Topic - trends; Moral Obligations; professional ethics; Public Opinion; regulatory issues; research ethics; Research Subjects - legislation & jurisprudence; Risk; risk/benefit analysis; Trust; Uncertainty; United Kingdom
• ISSN: 1526-5161; 1536-0075; 1536-0075
• DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2010.482630

Research involving human subjects is much more stringently regulated than many other nonresearch activities that appear to be at least as risky. A number of prominent figures now argue that research is overregulated. We argue that the reasons typically offered to justify the present system of research regulation fail to show that research should be subject to more stringent regulation than other equally risky activities. However, there are three often overlooked reasons for thinking that research should be treated as a special case. First, research typically involves the imposition of risk on people who do not benefit from this risk imposition. Second, research depends on public trust. Third, the complexity of the moral decision making required favors ethics committees as a regulative solution for research.