Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines

Authors: Dearbhail Bracken-Roche, Emily Bell, Mary Ellen Macdonald, Eric Racine

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The concept of vulnerability has held a central place in research ethics guidance since its introduction in the United States Belmont Report in 1979. It signals mindfulness for researchers and research ethics boards to the possibility that some participants may be at higher risk of harm or wrong. Despite its important intended purpose and widespread use, there is considerable disagreement in the scholarly literature about the meaning and delineation of vulnerability, stemming from a perceived lack of guidance within research ethics standards. The aim of this study was to assess the concept of vulnerability as it is employed in major national and international research ethics policies and guidelines.

Methods

We conducted an in-depth analysis of 11 (five national and six international) research ethics policies and guidelines, exploring their discussions of the definition, application, normative justification and implications of vulnerability.

Results

Few policies and guidelines explicitly defined vulnerability, instead relying on implicit assumptions and the delineation of vulnerable groups and sources of vulnerability. On the whole, we found considerable richness in the content on vulnerability across policies, but note that this relies heavily on the structure imposed on the data through our analysis.

Conclusions

Our results underscore a need for policymakers to revisit the guidance on vulnerability in research ethics, and we propose that a process of stakeholder engagement would well-support this effort.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Coleman CH. Vulnerability as a regulatory category in human subject research. J Law Med Ethics. 2009;37:12–8.CrossRefPubMed Coleman CH. Vulnerability as a regulatory category in human subject research. J Law Med Ethics. 2009;37:12–8.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference ten Have H. Respect for human vulnerability: the emergence of a new principle in bioethics. J Bioeth Inq. 2015;12:395–408.CrossRefPubMed ten Have H. Respect for human vulnerability: the emergence of a new principle in bioethics. J Bioeth Inq. 2015;12:395–408.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Eriksson S, Höglund AT, Helgesson G. Do ethical guidelines give guidance? A critical examination of eight ethics regulations. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2008;17:15–29. Eriksson S, Höglund AT, Helgesson G. Do ethical guidelines give guidance? A critical examination of eight ethics regulations. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2008;17:15–29.
5.
go back to reference Hurst SA. Vulnerability in research and health care; describing the elephant in the room? Bioethics. 2008;22:191–202.CrossRefPubMed Hurst SA. Vulnerability in research and health care; describing the elephant in the room? Bioethics. 2008;22:191–202.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Luna F. Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: layers not labels. Int J Fem Approaches Bioeth. 2009;2:121–39.CrossRef Luna F. Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: layers not labels. Int J Fem Approaches Bioeth. 2009;2:121–39.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Lange MM, Rogers W, Dodds S. Vulnerability in research ethics: a way forward. Bioethics. 2013;27:333–40.CrossRefPubMed Lange MM, Rogers W, Dodds S. Vulnerability in research ethics: a way forward. Bioethics. 2013;27:333–40.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Rogers W. Vulnerability and bioethics. In: Mackenzie C, Rogers W, Dodds S, editors. Vulnerability: new essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 60–87. Rogers W. Vulnerability and bioethics. In: Mackenzie C, Rogers W, Dodds S, editors. Vulnerability: new essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 60–87.
9.
go back to reference DuBois JM, Beskow L, Campbell J, Dugosh K, Festinger D, Hartz S, James R, Lidz C. Restoring balance: a consensus statement on the protection of vulnerable research participants. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:2220–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral DuBois JM, Beskow L, Campbell J, Dugosh K, Festinger D, Hartz S, James R, Lidz C. Restoring balance: a consensus statement on the protection of vulnerable research participants. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:2220–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Bell E, Racine E, Chiasson P, Dufourcq-Brana M, Dunn LB, Fins JJ, et al. Beyond consent in research: revisiting vulnerability in deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2014;23:361–8. Bell E, Racine E, Chiasson P, Dufourcq-Brana M, Dunn LB, Fins JJ, et al. Beyond consent in research: revisiting vulnerability in deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2014;23:361–8.
11.
go back to reference Schroeder D, Gefenas E. Vulnerability: too vague and too broad? Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2009;18:113–21. Schroeder D, Gefenas E. Vulnerability: too vague and too broad? Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2009;18:113–21.
12.
go back to reference Levine C, Faden R, Grady C, Hammerschmidt D, Eckenwiler L, Sugarman J, et al. The limitations of “vulnerability” as a protection for human research participants. Am J Bioethics. 2004;4:44–9.CrossRef Levine C, Faden R, Grady C, Hammerschmidt D, Eckenwiler L, Sugarman J, et al. The limitations of “vulnerability” as a protection for human research participants. Am J Bioethics. 2004;4:44–9.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Nickel PJ. Vulnerable populations in research: the case of the seriously ill. Theor Med Bioeth. 2006;27:245–64.CrossRefPubMed Nickel PJ. Vulnerable populations in research: the case of the seriously ill. Theor Med Bioeth. 2006;27:245–64.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Luna F, Vanderpoel S. Not the usual suspects: addressing layers of vulnerability. Bioethics. 2013;27:325–32.CrossRefPubMed Luna F, Vanderpoel S. Not the usual suspects: addressing layers of vulnerability. Bioethics. 2013;27:325–32.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Zimmerman E, Racine E. Ethical issues in the translation of social neuroscience: a policy analysis of current guidelines for public dialogue in human research. Account Res. 2012;19:27–46.PubMed Zimmerman E, Racine E. Ethical issues in the translation of social neuroscience: a policy analysis of current guidelines for public dialogue in human research. Account Res. 2012;19:27–46.PubMed
17.
go back to reference World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Fortaleza, Brazil: 2013. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Accessed 7 January 2015. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Fortaleza, Brazil: 2013. http://​www.​wma.​net/​en/​30publications/​10policies/​b3/​.​ Accessed 7 January 2015.
18.
go back to reference Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: CIOMS. 2002. http://www.cioms.ch/publications/guidelines/guidelines_nov_2002_blurb.htm. Accessed 7 January 2015. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: CIOMS. 2002. http://​www.​cioms.​ch/​publications/​guidelines/​guidelines_​nov_​2002_​blurb.​htm.​ Accessed 7 January 2015.
19.
go back to reference United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. UNESCO: 2005. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed 7 January 2015. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. UNESCO: 2005. http://​portal.​unesco.​org/​en/​ev.​php-URL_​ID=​31058&​URL_​DO=​DO_​TOPIC&​URL_​SECTION=​201.​html.​ Accessed 7 January 2015.
20.
go back to reference Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official J L 121:34-44. https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2001_20/dir_2001_20_en.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2015. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official J L 121:34-44. https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​health/​sites/​health/​files/​files/​eudralex/​vol-1/​dir_​2001_​20/​dir_​2001_​20_​en.​pdf.​ Accessed 21 July 2015.
21.
go back to reference Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. Official J L 158:1-76. https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2014_536/reg_2014_536_en.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2015. Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. Official J L 158:1-76. https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​health/​sites/​health/​files/​files/​eudralex/​vol-1/​reg_​2014_​536/​reg_​2014_​536_​en.​pdf.​ Accessed 21 July 2015.
22.
go back to reference ICH Steering Committee. ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline. In Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6. 1996. ICH Steering Committee. ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline. In Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6. 1996.
23.
go back to reference The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Updated March 2014). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government; 2007. The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Updated March 2014). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government; 2007.
24.
go back to reference Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans, December 2014. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2-2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf. Accessed 6 January 2015. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans, December 2014. http://​www.​pre.​ethics.​gc.​ca/​pdf/​eng/​tcps2-2014/​TCPS_​2_​FINAL_​Web.​pdf.​ Accessed 6 January 2015.
25.
go back to reference Department of Health. Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care, second edition. COI; 2005. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/139565/dh_4122427.pdf. Accessed 6 January 2015. Department of Health. Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care, second edition. COI; 2005. https://​www.​gov.​uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment_​data/​file/​139565/​dh_​4122427.​pdf.​ Accessed 6 January 2015.
26.
go back to reference The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1979. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1979.
27.
go back to reference Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. § 46 (2001). https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html. Accessed 7 January 2015. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. § 46 (2001). https://​www.​hhs.​gov/​ohrp/​regulations-and-policy/​regulations/​45-cfr-46/​index.​html.​ Accessed 7 January 2015.
28.
go back to reference Kipnis K. Seven vulnerabilities in the pediatric research subject. Theor Med Bioeth. 2003;24:107–20.CrossRefPubMed Kipnis K. Seven vulnerabilities in the pediatric research subject. Theor Med Bioeth. 2003;24:107–20.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Kipnis K. Vulnerability in research subjects: a bioethical taxonomy. In: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, editor. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Bethesda: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 2001. p. G1–G13. Kipnis K. Vulnerability in research subjects: a bioethical taxonomy. In: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, editor. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Bethesda: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 2001. p. G1–G13.
31.
go back to reference Schrems BM. Informed consent, vulnerability and the risks of group-specific attribution. Nurs Ethics. 2014;21:829–43.CrossRefPubMed Schrems BM. Informed consent, vulnerability and the risks of group-specific attribution. Nurs Ethics. 2014;21:829–43.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Zion D, Gillam L, Loff B. The Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS and the ethics of research on vulnerable populations. Nat Med. 2000;6:615–7.CrossRefPubMed Zion D, Gillam L, Loff B. The Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS and the ethics of research on vulnerable populations. Nat Med. 2000;6:615–7.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Bracken-Roche D, Bell E, Racine E. The “vulnerability” of psychiatric research participants: why this research ethics concept needs to be revisited. Can J Psychiat. 2016;61:335–9.CrossRef Bracken-Roche D, Bell E, Racine E. The “vulnerability” of psychiatric research participants: why this research ethics concept needs to be revisited. Can J Psychiat. 2016;61:335–9.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Loue S, Loff B. Is there a universal understanding of vulnerability? Experiences with Russian and Romanian trainees in research ethics. J Empir Res Hum Res. 2013;8:17–27.CrossRef Loue S, Loff B. Is there a universal understanding of vulnerability? Experiences with Russian and Romanian trainees in research ethics. J Empir Res Hum Res. 2013;8:17–27.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Sengupta S, Lo B, Strauss RP, Eron J, Gifford AL. How researchers define vulnerable populations in HIV/AIDS clinical trials. AIDS and Behav. 2010;14:1313–9.CrossRef Sengupta S, Lo B, Strauss RP, Eron J, Gifford AL. How researchers define vulnerable populations in HIV/AIDS clinical trials. AIDS and Behav. 2010;14:1313–9.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Deslauriers C, Bell E, Palmour N, Pike B, Doyon J, Racine E. Perspectives of Canadian researchers on ethics review of neuroimaging research. J Empir Res Hum Res. 2010;5:49–66.CrossRef Deslauriers C, Bell E, Palmour N, Pike B, Doyon J, Racine E. Perspectives of Canadian researchers on ethics review of neuroimaging research. J Empir Res Hum Res. 2010;5:49–66.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines
Authors
Dearbhail Bracken-Roche
Emily Bell
Mary Ellen Macdonald
Eric Racine
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0164-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2017 Go to the issue