By failing to follow informed consent protocols and regulations, a researcher engaging in CBPR may inflict permanent harm on the participating community and chill future research among disadvantaged populations.
The differences between CBPR and traditional research have been enumerated, but how to overcome them is still up for discussion, collaboration with community members is advocated, and examples are given.
The phrase “I take Lipitor instead of a generic” was embedded in the public consciousness through an advertising campaign that featured Robert Jarvik, credited with the invention of the artificial heart.
Deciding whether to recommend Avastin or Lucentis raises ethical issues. Should the public health consequences of using a far more expensive drug trump what the doctor thinks is best for the individual patient?
CBP researchers are challenged to think strategically about ways to convey their accomplishments and educate their non-CBPR peers about the nature of their research, processes not required of traditional researchers.
Elizabeth Lee Daugherty, MD, MPH and Douglas B. White, MD, MA
Opportunities to advance scientific knowledge may arise during humanitarian crises, but their presence does not justify suspension of the ethical foundations governing human subjects research.
Research is needed to understand mental health effects of cancer at diagnosis, throughout treatment and the post-treatment phases, and in survivorship.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(5):486-492. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.5.msoc2-1705.