Social media, meaning digital technologies and platforms such as blogs, wikis, forums, content aggregators, sharing sites, and social networks like Facebook and Twitter, have profoundly changed the way that information can be shared online. Now, almost anyone with a broadband internet connection or a smart phone can share ideas, data, and opinions with just about anyone else on the planet. This change has serious implications for the way in which human subjects research can be conducted and, concomitantly, for the ways (...) in which such research may be regulated. This article explores some of these issues. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe concept of ‘vulnerability’ is well established within the realm of research ethics and most ethical guidelines include a section on ‘vulnerable populations’. However, the term ‘vulnerability’, used within a human research context, has received a lot of negative publicity recently and has been described as being simultaneously ‘too broad’ and ‘too narrow’.1 The aim of the paper is to explore the concept of research vulnerability by using a detailed case study – that of mineworkers in post‐apartheid South Africa. In (...) particular, the usefulness of Kipnis’s taxonomy of research vulnerability will be examined.2In recent years the volume of clinical research on human subjects in South Africa has increased significantly. The HIV and TB pandemics have contributed to this increase. These epidemics have impacted negatively on the mining industry; and mining companies have become increasingly interested in research initiatives that address these problems. This case study explores the potential research vulnerability of mineworkers in the context of the South African mining industry and examines measures that can reduce this vulnerability. (shrink)

The federal regulations that govern biomedical research, most notably those enshrined in the Common Rule, are a product of their time. Born in the aftermath of wartime atrocities committed by Nazi doctors, and influenced by domestic research scandals like the Willowbrook and Tuskegee studies, the regulations express a protectionist ethos aimed at safeguarding subjects of human experimentation from the potential harms of research participation. Requirements for informed consent, risk minimization, equitable subject selection, and peer review of proposed research rest on (...) the presumption that the research enterprise owes subjects a duty of protection. (shrink)

Given the primary mandate for institutional review boards (IRBs) to protect potential participants from harm, the egregious history of research abuses, and the fact that there is no mention of incl...

Hastings Center Report, Volume 52, Issue 1, Page 12-14, January/February 2022.