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 revisions balance a growing understanding of gender identity disorders and societal views with the need to retain conditions that benefit from intervention and the removal of which would hamper patients’ ability to receive medical treatment.
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.