Abstract
Clinical trials raise two main sets of ethical challenges. The first concerns protecting human beings when they are used in scientific experiments. The second concerns protecting the welfare of downstream users of medical evidence generated in trials. The present chapter reviews core ethical standards and principles governing the conception, design, conduct, and reporting of clinical trials. This review concludes by suggesting that even the most technical decisions about design and reporting embed numerous moral judgments about how to serve the interests of research subjects and downstream users of medical evidence.
Clinical trials are experiments on human beings. They involve two elements that make them ethically sensitive undertakings. First, the very reagent used in the experiment – the human being – has what philosophers call moral status. That is, human beings are sentient and self-aware, they have preferences and plans, and they have a capacity for suffering. Human beings are thus entitled to having their interests respected and protected when they are themselves the research reagents. Second, clinical trials are aimed at supporting decision-making in health care. Life and death decisions are ultimately based on the evidence we generate from human experiments. Human beings who use that evidence deserve protection from scientific findings that are misleading, incomplete, or biased.
In what follows, I provide a very condensed overview of the ethics of clinical trials. Most writings on the ethics of clinical trials have centered on the protection of human volunteers, treating issues of research integrity as an afterthought, if at all. Two core claims ground this review – claims that perhaps differentiate it from similar overviews of human research ethics. The first is that scientific integrity is a complement to human protections; even the most technical decisions about design and analysis are laden with implicit ethical judgments. The second is that clinical trials present ethical challenges across their full life cycle – not merely in the brief window when a trial is open for enrollment, and where human protection regulations are directed. This review is thus organized according to the life cycle of a clinical trial.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi H-M et al (2018) Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 391:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32714-9
Andersen M, Kragstrup J, Søndergaard J (2006) How conducting a clinical trial affects physicians’ guideline adherence and drug preferences. JAMA 295:2759–2764. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.23.2759
Annas GJ, Grodin MA (eds) (1995) The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code: human rights in human experimentation, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, New York
Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW et al (1987) False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hast Cent Rep 17:20–24
Azar M, Riehm KE, Saadat N et al (2019) Evaluation of journal registration policies and prospective registration of randomized clinical trials of nonregulated health care interventions. JAMA Intern Med. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8009
Bauchner H, Golub RM, Fontanarosa PB (2016) Data sharing: an ethical and scientific imperative. JAMA 315:1238–1240. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.2420
Beecher HK (1966) Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med 274:1354–1360. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM196606162742405
Bothwell LE, Kesselheim AS (2017) Thereal-world ethics of adaptive-design clinical trials. Hast Cent Rep 47:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.783
Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S et al (2014) Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 32:4120–4126. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.7503
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (Canada) (2018) Tri-Council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans
Carlisle B, Federico CA, Kimmelman J (2018) Trials that say “maybe”: the disconnect between exploratory and confirmatory testing after drug approval. BMJ 360:k959. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k959
Chalmers I, Nylenna M (2014) A new network to promote evidence-based research. Lancet 384:1903–1904. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62252-2
Crouch RA, Arras JD (1998) AZT trials and tribulations. Hast Cent Rep 28:26–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3528266
DeMets DL, Furberg CD, Friedman LM (eds) (2005) Data monitoring in clinical trials: a case studies approach, 2006 edition. Springer, New York
Dickmann LJ, Schutzman JL (2017) Racial and ethnic composition of cancer clinical drug trials: how diverse are we? Oncologist. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0237
Dixon-Woods M, Jackson C, Windridge KC, Kenyon S (2006) Receiving a summary of the results of a trial: qualitative study of participants’ views. BMJ 332:206–210. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38675.677963.3A
Elahi M, Eshera N, Bambata N et al (2016) The Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health: impact of science on regulatory policy: an update. J Women’s Health 25:222–234. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2015.5671
Faden RR, Beauchamp TL (1986) A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press, New York
Federico CA, Wang T, Doussau A et al (2019) Assessment of pregabalin postapproval trials and the suggestion of efficacy for new indications: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med 179:90–97. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5705
Fergusson D, Glass KC, Hutton B, Shapiro S (2005) Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clin Trials 2:218–232. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774505cn085oa
Flory J, Emanuel E (2004) Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA 292:1593–1601. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.13.1593
Flory JH, Kitcher P (2004) Global health and the scientific research agenda. Philos Public Aff 32:36–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00004.x
Flory JH, Mushlin AI, Goodman ZI (2016) Proposals to conduct randomized controlled trials without informed consent: a narrative review. J Gen Intern Med 31:1511–1518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3780-5
Freedman B (1987) Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 317:141–145. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198707163170304
General Assembly of the World Medical Association (2014) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Coll Dent 81:14–18
Ghare MI, Chandrasekhar J, Mehran R et al (2019) Sexdisparities in cardiovascular device evaluations: strategies for recruitment and retention of female patients in clinical device trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 12:301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.10.048
Glickman SW, McHutchison JG, Peterson ED et al (2009) Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. N Engl J Med 360:816–823. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb0803929
Goldbeck-Wood S (1998) Denmark takes a lead on research ethics. BMJ 316:1185. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1185j
Grant RW, Sugarman J (2004) Ethics in human subjects research: do incentives matter? J Med Philos 29:717–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605310490883046
Hakala A, Kimmelman J, Carlisle B et al (2015) Accessibility of trial reports for drugs stalling in development: a systematic assessment of registered trials. BMJ 350:h1116. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1116
Halperin H, Paradis N, Mosesso V et al (2007) Recommendations for implementation of community consultation and public disclosure under the Food and Drug Administration’s “exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research”: a special report from the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and Council on Cardiopulmonary, Perioperative and Critical Care: endorsed by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Circulation 116:1855–1863. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.186661
Halpern SD, Karlawish JHT, Berlin JA (2002) The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA 288:358–362
Hawkins JS (2004) The ethics of Zelen consent. J Thromb Haemost 2:882–883. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2004.00782.x
Hey SP, Kimmelman J (2014) The questionable use of unequal allocation in confirmatory trials. Neurology 82:77–79. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000438226.10353.1c
Hope T, McMillan J (2004) Challenge studies of human volunteers: ethical issues. J Med Ethics 30:110–116. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2003.004440
Horng S, Grady C (2003) Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism. IRB 25:11–16
International Council for Harmonisation (1996) Guideline for good clinical practice. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E6_R2_Addendum.pdf
Kane PB, Kim SYH, Kimmelman J (2020) Whatresearch ethics (often) gets wrong about minimal risk. Am J Bioeth 20:42–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1687789
Kasenda B, Schandelmaier S, Sun X et al (2014) Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications. BMJ 349:g4539. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4539
Kimmelman J (2005) Medical research, risk, and bystanders. IRB Ethics Hum Res 27:1
Kimmelman J (2020) What is human research for? Reflections on the omission of scientific integrity from the Belmont Report (accepted). Perspect Biol Med 62(2):251–261
Kimmelman J, Federico C (2017) Consider drug efficacy before first-in-human trials. Nature 542:25–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/542025a
Kimmelman J, Weijer C, Meslin EM (2009) Helsinki discords: FDA, ethics, and international drug trials. Lancet 373:13–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61936-4
King NMP (2000) Defining and describing benefit appropriately in clinical trials. J Law Med Ethics 28:332–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2000.tb00685.x
Lantos JD, Feudtner C (2015) SUPPORT and the ethics of study implementation: lessons for comparative effectiveness research from the trial of oxygen therapy for premature babies. Hast Cent Rep 45:30–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.407
Levine C, Faden R, Grady C et al (2004) “Special scrutiny”: a targeted form of research protocol review. Ann Intern Med 140:220–223
Loder E, Groves T (2015) The BMJ requires data sharing on request for all trials. BMJ 350:h2373. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2373
London AJ (2007) Clinical equipoise: foundational requirement or fundamental error? In: The Oxford handbook of bioethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 571–596
London AJ, Kimmelman J, Emborg ME (2010) Beyond access vs. protection in trials of innovative therapies. Science 328:829–830. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1189369
London AJ, Kimmelman J, Carlisle B (2012) Rethinking research ethics: the case of postmarketing trials. Science 336:544–545. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216086
Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D et al (2009) Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 302:977–984. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1242
Mello MM, Francer JK, Wilenzick M et al (2013) Preparing for responsible sharing of clinical trial data. N Engl J Med 369:1651–1658. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMhle1309073
Mello MM, Lieou V, Goodman SN (2018) Clinical trial participants’ views of the risks and benefits of data sharing. N Engl J Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1713258
Menikoff J, Kaneshiro J, Pritchard I (2017) Thecommon rule, updated. N Engl J Med 376:613–615. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1700736
Nasser M, Clarke M, Chalmers I et al (2017) What are funders doing to minimise waste in research? Lancet 389:1006–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30657-8
Palmowski A, Buttgereit T, Palmowski Y et al (2018) Applicability of trials in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of trial populations showing adequate proportion of women, but underrepresentation of elderly people. Semin Arthritis Rheum. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2018.10.017
Partridge AH, Winer EP (2002) Informing clinical trial participants about study results. JAMA 288:363–365. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.3.363
Phillips R, Hazell L, Sauzet O, Cornelius V (2019) Analysis and reporting of adverse events in randomised controlled trials: a review. BMJ Open 9:e024537. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024537
Polman CH, Reingold SC, Barkhof F et al (2008) Ethics of placebo-controlled clinical trials in multiple sclerosis: a reassessment. Neurology 70:1134–1140. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000306410.84794.4d
Richardson HS, Belsky L (2004) The ancillary-care responsibilities of medical researchers. An ethical framework for thinking about the clinical care that researchers owe their subjects. Hast Cent Rep 34:25–33
Savulescu J, Chalmers I, Blunt J (1996) Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability. BMJ 313:1390–1393. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7069.1390
Sox HC, Rennie D (2008) Seeding trials: just say “no”. Ann Intern Med 149:279–280
Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG et al (2012) Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:MR000030. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000030.pub2
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2016) 42 CFR 11: clinical trials registration and results information submission
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (2005) Guidance for industry: how to comply with the Pediatric Research Equity Act
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration(2009) Good reprint practices for the distribution of medical journal articles and medical or scientific reference publications on unapproved new uses of approved drugs and approved or cleared medical devices
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration(2016) Collection of race and ethnicity data in clinical trials
Vedula SS, Li T, Dickersin K (2013) Differences in reporting of analyses in internal company documents versus published trial reports: comparisons in industry-sponsored trials in off-label uses of gabapentin. PLoS Med 10:e1001378. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001378
Weijer C, Miller PB (2004) When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits? Nat Med 10:570. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0604-570
Weijer C, Grimshaw JM, Taljaard M et al (2011) Ethical issues posed by cluster randomized trials in health research. Trials 12:100. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-100
Wolf SM, Paradise J, Caga-anan C (2008) The law of incidental findings in human subjects research: establishing researchers’ duties. J Law Med Ethics 36(361–383):214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00281.x
World Health Organization, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (2017) International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. CIOMS, Geneva
Yordanov Y, Dechartres A, Porcher R et al (2015) Avoidable waste of research related to inadequate methods in clinical trials. BMJ 350:h809. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h809
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Kimmelman, J. (2022). Clinical Trials, Ethics, and Human Protections Policies. In: Piantadosi, S., Meinert, C.L. (eds) Principles and Practice of Clinical Trials. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52636-2_238
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52636-2_238
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52635-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52636-2
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsReference Module Computer Science and Engineering