Skeptical Doubts

Introduction Are there special ethical problems relating to research? Are such problems best addressed via an ethics committee?

What is research? (an attempt at) organised, systematised discovery A priori or empirical, passive or active, observing or engaging Someone might suggest a threefold distinction: input, research, application. But: This isn’t correct Even if it were, there might still be ethical issues.

What is an ethical problem? Wrong to know – bad for us An ethical problem – some risk of harm – making things worse failure to benefit – not making things better a rights violation Not all research involves such risks Not all research is morally problematic The dominant, or current concerns are more focussed

What is a research subject? Someone, or something on which research is done- observed or investigated Something that can be harmed – a human being, animal, or plant(?) Something harm to which matters morally. So not plants(?) (Research and animal ethics?) Two refinements: Human beings v human organisms. The living v the dead.

Research and the living human subject Consider the data. Distinguish collected earlier, by others v collected now, by researchers Passive observation v active engagement Interrogation v manipulation External change v internal change (non-medical v medical) Plausibly, the risks of harm increase as we work down. But such risks are widespread outside a research context.

Harms – a broader view Research may be especially problematic as A greater percentage of participants are at risk There are fewer countervailing benefits Benefits cannot be assessed Benefits don’t come to those at risk Lose trust, and future generations are harmed. Public money is involved. The ethical issues relating to research are more problematic than those elsewhere.

Who should scrutinise research? Researchers In favour: know the field; ‘professional’. Against: dubious motivations; atrocities. Subjects In favour: able to weigh risks to themselves; respect for autonomy and the right to consent. Against: don’t understand protocols; need protection from, e.g., coercion.

Committees How hard are research ethics issues? Hard Committees can’t be expected to get it right Not hard Committees are expensive and unnecessary

Committees can be expected to get hard cases right Some judging bodies are considered to be unproblematic; REC’s are relevantly similar; so REC’s should be considered to be unproblematic. E.g., juries. But there are disanalogies between REC’s and juries: –Juries are making retrospective legal rulings; REC’s are providing prospective ethical evaluation. –Legal rulings are objective in a sense in which REC decisions are not. –There is no equivalent in the case of REC’s to a legal framework that includes laws based on precedents. –There is no equivalent in the case of REC’s to a jury’s being directed by a judge and other officers of the court.

Committees: composition Ethicists: over-focused on normative theory; studying metaethics doesn’t make one better at judging the permissibility of research. Related professionals (e.g., doctor): neither ethical expertise nor the lay perspective. Specialist members (e.g., statistician, medico-legal expert, data protection officer): neither ethical expertise nor the lay perspective. Non-related professionals but with moral training (e.g., priest): quasi-ethical expert with idiosyncratic ideology. Lay members: tend to replicate other roles; ‘the lay perspective’ is oxymoronic.

Other worries The REC is a source of management control and a way of back-covering. Too much governance results in ethically complacent researchers. The opportunity costs of research governance is very high.

Conclusion A quandary Research should not go unscrutinised. But there’s a trilemma between giving authority to scrutinise to researchers, subjects and committees. There’s no obvious fourth source of moral authority. We’ll probably just bumble along as we have been.