2011 (English)In: IRB: Ethics and Human Research, ISSN 0193-7758, Vol. 33, no 2, 1-5 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
The term exploitation is notoriously hard to define. Yet it is frequently invoked to frame moral concerns about clinical research. Recently, a group of influential authors have proposed a so-called “non-exploitation framework” for the ethics of randomized controlled trials that appears to address these concerns. In this paper, I challenge one basic assumption of that framework: the idea that non-exploitation in research requires participants to be protected from excessive risks, understood as risks that are not outweighed by the benefits that the research is expected to lead to. Drawing on examples of exploitation in other contexts, I show that this idea has highly counterintuitive implications. I conclude that the non-exploitation framework obscures concerns about exploitation in biomedical research rather than clarifying them.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Hastings Center , 2011. Vol. 33, no 2, 1-5 p.
biomedical research, exploitation, randomized controlled trials, risks and benefits, the non-exploitation framework
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-77793OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-77793DiVA: diva2:529293