Despite a tendency to react otherwise, there is no obvious reason to believe that economically disadvantaged people ought not to be exposed to the same levels of research risk as the rest of the population.
The AAP’s guidelines on lipid screening for children raise concerns about the fundamental purpose of prevention and its role in balancing individual autonomy with the benefits of society at large.
Public and private choices about allocation of funds for research raise a social-justice question: are these funding sources making fair decisions about where to invest their resources? The NIH has the clearest obligation to do so because it is taxpayer-supported.
The question that comes to mind when one considers the risks of a clinical trial is, “Why would anyone agree to participate?” Interviews with trial volunteers and their family members make clear that often it is the appeal of discovering something new and unknown.
Clara C. Hildebrandt, MD and Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH
Gene editing with CRISPR/Cas9 raises concerns about equitable access to therapies that could limit research participation by minority group members. These concerns can be addressed through public education, transparency, and stakeholder partnerships.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E826-833. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.826.
Rebekah Davis Reed, PhD, JD and Erik L. Antonsen, PhD, MD
Though the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s collection of disaggregated genetic data for occupational surveillance and research raises numerous privacy concerns, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 allows genetic information to be used to develop personal pharmaceuticals.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E849-856. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.849.
Dr Lisa Fuller joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article: “How Should Organizations and Clinicians Help Marginalized Patients Manage Loneliness as a Harm of Climate Change?”