ETHICS, AMBIGUITY AVERSION, AND THE REVIEW OF COMPLEX TRANSLATIONAL CLINICAL TRIALS

被引:14
作者
Kimmelman, Jonathan [1 ]
机构
[1] McGill Univ, Fac Med, Dept Social Studies Med, Biomed Eth Unit,Clin Trials Res Grp, Montreal, PQ H3A 1X1, Canada
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
research ethics; risk; ambiguity; phase; 1; trials; attention; bias; independent review; DEEP BRAIN-STIMULATION; PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE; PARKINSONS-DISEASE; RISK; SCIENCE; UNCERTAINTY; COGNITION; POLITICS; BEHAVIOR; EMOTION;
D O I
10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01856.x
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
010105 [伦理学];
摘要
Clinical trials of novel agents often present several layers of ethical challenge. Because time and resources for ethical and safety review are limited, how investigators, IRBs, and regulators allocate attention to a trial's various safety dimensions itself represents a critical ethical question. In what follows, I use the example of a Parkinson's disease gene transfer trial to show how risks involving unknown probabilities or outcomes (ambiguity), might sometimes draw attention away from risks that involve known probabilities or outcomes. This potentially undermines the goal of systematic and nonarbitrary analysis of risk during ethical review. To counteract the possible effects of such attention biases, I propose that reviewers develop cognitive aids like lists and, where appropriate, set aside time to discuss non-ambiguous risks. I also propose further research for addressing and understanding how attention allocation, emotion, and ambiguity influence ethical decision-making.
引用
收藏
页码:242 / 250
页数:9
相关论文
共 54 条
[1]
Selectively attending to auditory objects [J].
Alain, C ;
Arnott, SR .
FRONTIERS IN BIOSCIENCE-LANDMARK, 2000, 5 :D202-D212
[2]
[Anonymous], 1988, J. Behav. Decis. Mak., DOI [DOI 10.1002/BDM.3960010303, 10.1002/bdm.3960010303]
[3]
Evolution and risky decisions [J].
Barrett, HC ;
Fiddick, L .
TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES, 2000, 4 (07) :251-252
[4]
Blakeslee S., 2001, NY TIMES 0411
[5]
Performing nondiagnostic research biopsies in irradiated tissue: A review of scientific, clinical, and ethical considerations [J].
Brown, Aaron P. ;
Wendler, David S. ;
Camphausen, Kevin A. ;
Miller, Franklin G. ;
Citrin, Deborah .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2008, 26 (24) :3987-3994
[6]
The precautionary principle and pharmaceutical risk management [J].
Callréus, T .
DRUG SAFETY, 2005, 28 (06) :465-471
[7]
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MODELING PREFERENCES - UNCERTAINTY AND AMBIGUITY [J].
CAMERER, C ;
WEBER, M .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 1992, 5 (04) :325-370
[8]
Ceregene, 2005, CER REP IN PHAS 1 CL
[9]
Visions of rationality [J].
Chase, VM ;
Hertwig, R ;
Gigerenzer, G .
TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES, 1998, 2 (06) :206-214
[10]
Second chance [J].
Check, Erika .
NATURE MEDICINE, 2007, 13 (07) :770-771