history of research ethics

Nuremberg Code

A well-known chapter in the history of research with human subjects opened on December 9, 1946, when an American military tribunal opened criminal proceedings against 23 leading German physicians and administrators for their willing participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Among the charges were that German physicians conducted medical experiments on thousands of oncentration camp prisoners without their consent. Most of the subjects of these experiments died or were permanently crippled as a result.

As a direct result of the trial, the Nuremberg Code was established in 1948, stating that "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential," making it clear that subjects should give consent and that the benefits of research must outweigh the risks.

Although it did not carry the force of law, the Nuremberg Code was the first international document which advocated voluntary participation and informed consent.

Thalidomide. In the late 1950s, thalidomide was approved as a sedative in Europe; it was not approved in the United States by the FDA. The drug was prescribed to control sleep and nausea throughout pregnancy, but it was soon found that taking this drug during pregnancy caused severe deformities in the fetus. Many patients did not know they were taking a drug that was not approved for use by the FDA, nor did they give informed consent. Some 12,000 babies were born with severe deformities due to thalidomide.
U.S. Senate hearings followed and in 1962 the so-called "Kefauver Amendments" to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act were passed into law to ensure drug efficacy and greater drug safety. For the first time, drug manufacturers were required to prove to FDA the effectiveness of their products before marketing them.

Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-1972). An equally well known chapter in history occurred during a research project conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service. Six hundred low-income African-American males, 400 of whom were infected with syphilis, were monitored for 40 years. Free medical examinations were given; however, subjects were not told about their disease. Even though a proven cure (penicillin) became available in the 1950s, the study continued until 1972 with participants being denied treatment. In some cases, when subjects were diagnosed as having syphilis by other physicians, researchers intervened to prevent treatment. Many subjects died of syphilis during the study. The study was stopped in 1973 by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare only after its existence was publicized and it became a political embarrassment. In 1997, under mounting pressure, President Clinton apologized to the study subjects and their families.

Declaration of Helsinki. In 1964, the World Medical Association established recommendations guiding medical doctors in biomedical research involving human subjects. The Declaration governs international research ethics and defines rules for "research combined with clinical care" and "non-therapeutic research." The Declaration of Helsinki was revised in 1975, 1983, 1989 and 1996 and is the basis for Good Clinical Practices used today.

Issues addressed in the Declaration of Helsinki include:

  • Research with humans should be based on the results from laboratory and animal experimentation
  • Research protocols should be reviewed by an independent committee prior to initiation
  • Informed consent from research participants is necessary
  • Research should be conducted by medically/scientifically qualified individuals
  • Risks should not exceed benefits

National Research Act (1974 ). Due to the publicity from the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the National Research Act of 1974 was passed. The National Research Act created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which was charged 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.
The Commission drafted the Belmont Report, a foundational document in for the ethics of human subjects research in the United States.
In Summary:

  • Nazi atrocities in World War II drew attention to the lack of international standards on research with human subjects and led to the formulation of the Nuremberg Code.
  • The thalidomide disaster led to the adoption of the "Kefauver Amendments" to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, requiring drug manufacturers to prove to the FDA the effectiveness of their products before marketing them.
  • The Declaration of Helsinki is the basis for Good Clinical Practices used today.
  • The Tuskegee Syphilis Study is probably the worst case of unethical human subjects research in the history of the United States.
  • The National Research Act codified the requirement that human subjects in research must be protected and set the stage for the issuance of the Belmont Report.

The Belmont Report

Carrying out its charge, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research prepared the Belmont Report in 1979. The Belmont Report attempts to summarize the basic ethical principles identified by the Commission in the course of its deliberations. The Report 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. The three basic ethical principles and their corresponding applications are:

Principle Application
Respect for persons
  • Individuals should be treated as autonomous agents
  • Persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.
Informed consent
  • Subjects, to the degree that they are capable, must be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them
  • The consent process must include three elements:
    • information,
    • comprehension, and
    • voluntariness.
Beneficence
  • Human subjects should not be harmed
  • Research should maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms.
Assessment of risks and benefits
  • The nature and scope of risks and benefits must be assessed in a systematic manner
Justice
  • The benefits and risks of research must be distributed fairly.
Selection of subjects
  • There must be fair procedures and outcomes in the selection of research subjects

The Belmont Report established three basic ethical principles – respect for persons, beneficence and justice – which are the cornerstone for regulations involving human subjects.


The Common Rule
In 1981, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued regulations based on the Belmont Report. DHHS issued Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 45 (public welfare), Part 46 (protection of human subjects). The FDA issued CFR Title 21 (food and drugs), Parts 50 (protection of human subjects) and 56 (Institutional Review Boards).
In 1991, the core DHHS regulations (45 CFR Part 46, Subpart A) were formally adopted by more than a dozen other Departments and Agencies that conduct or fund research involving human subjects as the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, or "Common Rule." In 1991, the Department of Veterans Affairs promulgated this same rule at 38 CFR Part 16. Today, the 1991 Federal Policy is shared by 17 Departments and Agencies, representing most, but not all, of the federal Departments and Agencies sponsoring human-subjects research.

The main elements of the Common Rule include :

  • requirements for assuring compliance by research institutions;
  • requirements for researchers obtaining and documenting informed consent;
  • requirements for research ethics committee membership, function, operations, review of research, and record keeping.
  • additional protections for certain vulnerable research subjects-- pregnant women, prisoners, and children

Introducing ethical principles in medical practice.

    Extracts from article by Raanan Gillon. BMJ, 1994;309:184(16 July).
  • Introduction Adherence to the principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence, and justice can provide a framework for medical professionals to use in making ethical decisions about health care and research. Respecting autonomy requires that patients be consulted and their consent be obtained before procedures are performed. Confidentiality is another aspect of respecting the autonomy of patients or clients. Most medical procedures and research involve weighing the possible benefits against the possible costs or risks of the treatment or research . Defining whose benefit and whose harm is essential in implementing the principles of beneficence. Acting in a just manner requires that medical professionals and researchers acknowledge the competing moral concerns of all parties involved.

  • Respect for autonomy Autonomy--literally, self rule, is a special attribute of all moral agents. If we have autonomy we can make our own decisions. In health care respecting people's autonomy has many prima facie implications. It requires us to consult people and obtain their agreement before we do things to them--hence the obligation to obtain informed consent from patients before we do things to try to help them. Medical confidentiality is another implication of respecting people's autonomy. We do not have any general obligation to keep other people's secrets, but health care workers explicitly or implicitly promise their patients and clients that they will keep confidential the information confided to them. Keeping promises is a way of respecting people's autonomy; an aspect of running our own life depends on being able to rely on the promises made to us by others. Without such promises of confidentiality patients are also far less likely to divulge the often highly private and sensitive information that is needed for their optimal care; thus maintaining confidentiality not only respects patients' autonomy but also increases the likelihood of our being able to help them.
    Respect for autonomy also requires us not to deceive each other as the absence of deceit is part of the implicit agreement among moral agents when they communicate with each other. They organise their lives on the assumption that people will not deceive them; their autonomy is infringed if they are deceived. Respect for patients' autonomy prima facie requires us, therefore, not to deceive patients, for example, about their diagnosed illness unless they clearly wish to be deceived. Respect for autonomy even requires us to be on time for appointments as an agreed appointment is a kind of mutual promise and if we do not keep an appointment we break the promise.
    To exercise respect for autonomy health care workers must be able to communicate well with their patients and clients. Good communication requires, most importantly, listening (and not just with the ears) as well as telling (and not just with the lips or a wordprocessor) and is usually necessary for giving patients adequate information about any proposed intervention and for finding out whether patients want that intervention. Good communication is also usually necessary for finding out when patients do not want a lot of information; some patients do not want to be told about a bad prognosis or to participate in deciding which of several treatments to have, preferring to leave this decision to their doctors. Respecting such attitudes shows just as much respect for a patient's autonomy as does giving patients information that they do want. However, most patients want more not less information and want to participate in deciding their medical care.

  • Beneficence Whenever we try to help others we inevitably risk harming them; health care workers, who are committed to helping others, must therefore consider the principles of beneficence and aim at producing net benefit over harm.
    We need to ensure that we can provide the benefits we profess to be able to provide. Hence we need rigorous and effective education and training both before and during our professional lives. We also need to make sure that we are offering each patient net benefit. Interestingly, to do this we must respect the patient's autonomy for what constitutes benefit for one patient may be harm for another. For example, a mastectomy may constitute a prospective net benefit for one woman with breast cancer, while for another the destruction of an aspect of her feminine identity may be so harmful that it cannot be outweighed even by the prospect of an extended life expectancy.
    One moral concept that in recent years has become popular in health care is that of empowerment--that is, doing things to help patients and clients to be more in control of their health and health care. Sometimes empowerment is even proposed as a new moral obligation. On reflection empowerment is, however, essentially an action that combines the two moral obligations of beneficence and respect for autonomy to help patients in ways that not only respect but also enhance their autonomy.

  • Justice Justice is often regarded as being synonymous with fairness and can be summarised as the moral obligation to act on the basis of fair settlement between competing claims. In health care ethics it useful to subdivide obligations of justice into three categories: fair distribution of scarce resources (distributive justice), respect for people's rights (rights based justice) and respect for morally acceptable laws (legal justice).
    Pending such agreement health care workers need to step cautiously as we have no special justification for imposing our own personal or professional views about justice on others. We certainly need to recognize and acknowledge the competing moral concerns. For example, in the context of the allocation of resources conflicts exist between several common moral concerns: to provide sufficient health care to meet the needs of all who need it; when this is impossible, to distribute health care resources in proportion to the extent of people's needs for health care; to allow health care workers to give priority to the needs of "their" patients; to provide equal access to health care; to allow people as much choice as possible in selecting their health care; to maximize the benefit produced by the available resources; to respect the autonomy of the people who provide those resources and thus to limit the cost to taxpayers. All these criteria for justly allocating health care resources can be morally justified but not all can be fully met simultaneously.