Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upoconcentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of (...) this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research. (shrink)

In clinical research, informed consent is both a legal document and mechanism for respecting the dignity of participating subjects and protecting their rights and wellbeing. It should include information on the purpose of the research, its justification, and the risks and the benefits involved, so as to enable a subject to decide to participate voluntarily. Because it is the researcher’s duty to ensure protection of the life, health, dignity, integrity, right to self-determination, privacy and confidentiality of the subjects who take (...) part in a study, the researcher must establish a permanent dialogue with them to assess the risks and safety inherent in their participation. This condition becomes a dynamic process that neither begins nor ends when informed consent is signed. It goes beyond legality and becomes a question of ethics and legitimacy. (shrink)

Deception in research is contentious, as ethical codes stress informed consent, yet complete disclosure may jeopardise validity. Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) guidelines classify deception into active, incomplete, and authorised forms. This study explores the ethical justification for incomplete (partial disclosure), permissible instances, and the dilemma faced by ethics committees in balancing scientific rigour and participant protection. The qualitative, non-experimental cross-sectional research, using in-depth interviews, identifies themes through thematic analysis. Findings reveal challenges for ethics committees, as incomplete information hampers (...) understanding, amongst others. The paper proposes an ethics committee framework, urging researchers to minimise or avoid partial deception and recommending institutional awareness campaigns and standard operating procedures for minimal-harm studies using partial disclosure. Therefore, it proposes that partial disclosure should be justified by the 3Vs—value, validity, and veracity to preserve research integrity. (shrink)