Skip to main content
Cover image of the book Research on Human Subjects
Books

Research on Human Subjects

Problems of Social Control in Medical Experimentation
Authors
Bernard Barber
John J. Lally
Julia Loughlin Makarushka
Daniel Sullivan
Hardcover
Add to Cart
Publication Date
6 in. × 9 in. 272 pages
ISBN
978-0-87154-090-4
Also Available From

About This Book

How are human subjects treated in biomedical research? What are the expressed standards and self-reported behavior of biomedical researchers in regard to what has sometimes been called their “animal of necessity”? What are some of the determinants of the “strict” and “permissive” patterns which describe the standards and behavior of biomedical researchers? These are the important questions asked and answered in Research on Human Subjects. It is a book based on four years of intensive research. Two studies were completed, one on a nationally representative sample of biomedical research institutions, a second on a sample of 350 researchers who actually use human subjects.

In their chapters on “the dilemma of science and therapy,” the authors look at the tension between the values of humane therapy and discovery in science. They show that the significant minority of researchers who are “permissive” on the issues of informed consent and a favorable risk-benefit ratio are more likely to be those who are “relative failures” in pursuing the science value.

Research on Human Subjects also documents the inadequate training that biomedical researchers get in the ethics of research on human subjects not only in medical schools but in their postgraduate training as well. The medical schools pay relatively more attention to the scientific training of their students than they do to the ethical training that should be its essential complement.

The local peer review groups that screen research on human subjects in the institutions where it is carried on are another central focus of attention of the research and analysis reported in this book. The peer review groups do a fairly good job but, the authors show, there are various conditions of their relative efficacy which are not met by review groups in many important research institutions. The medical school review groups, for example, have not been outstanding performers with respect to the several conditions of relative efficacy.

In the concluding chapter, the authors discuss the general problem of the social responsibilities of powerful professions and make very specific suggestions for policy change and reform for the biomedical research profession and its use of human subjects.

BERNARD BARBER is on the Barnard College and Graduate Faculties of Columbia University.

JOHN J. LALLY is at Lehman College, CUNY.

JULIA LOUGHLIN MAKARUSHKA is at Barnard College, Columbia University.

DANIEL SULLIVAN, formerly of Barnard College, now teaches at Carleton College.

RSF Journal
View Book Series
Sign Up For Our Mailing List
Apply For Funding

To trust a stranger is risky, but if we never took that risk, we would never know whether the stranger was trustworthy or not. Toshio Yamagishi of Hokkaido University received an award to study the role of risk-taking in building trust. He will run a series of experimental games, in which players profit if their trust is reciprocated, but lose out if their trust is abused.

Most studies of trust focus upon the faith one person places in another, based on their past interactions with them. Piotr Swistak of the University of Maryland received an award to develop a new model of trust, focusing not on the faith we put in another person, but on the faith we put in third party advice about that other person. His model promises a new way to define and measure the strength of trust. Suppose, for example, that our past encounters with a person suggest that they are cooperative, but we are told, by a third party, that they are unreliable.

Game theory assumes that players will renege on any agreement that does not serve their interests at each stage of the game. Indeed, rational players would not enter such agreements in the first place. In reality, however, things are more complex. People decide whether to trust others, or to vindicate another's trust in them, depending upon whom they are dealing with and the circumstances of the transaction. As Kevin McCabe, Dan Houser, and Vernon Smith of the University of Arizona put it, we keep mental accounts of the goodwill we owe to others and the goodwill others owe to us.

Although often taken for granted or overlooked, trust is an integral component of every interaction or relationship. Obviously, a healthy society commands a significant degree of trust in its institutions. With the current spate of accounting and insider trading scandals, trust in our economic institutions is perhaps at its lowest level in the history of the United States. James Andreoni and Larry Samuelson of the University of Wisconsin are examining the nature of trust in order to see if institutions could possibly build social capital and a culture of trust.