Ethical issues in the translation of social neuroscience: a policy analysis of current guidelines for public dialogue in human research

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

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.

A room with a view of integrity and professionalism: personal reflections on teaching responsible conduct of research in the neurosciences

Neuroscientists are increasingly put into situations which demand critical reflection about the ethical and appropriate use of research tools and scientific knowledge. Students or trainees also have to know how to navigate the ethical domains of this context. At a time when neuroscience is expected to advance policy and practice outcomes, in the face of academic pressures and complex environments, the importance of scientific integrity comes into focus and with it the need for training at the graduate level in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). I describe my experience teaching RCR in a graduate neuroscience program and identify three personal reflections where further dialogue could be warranted: (1) mobilizing a common set of competencies and virtues standing for professionalism in the neurosciences; (2) tailoring RCR for the neurosciences and empowering students through the active engagement of mentors; (3) soliciting shared responsibility for RCR training between disciplines, institutions and governmental or funding agencies.