Article Text
Abstract
All major research ethics policies assert that the ethical review of clinical trial protocols should include a systematic assessment of risks and benefits. But despite this policy, protocols do not typically contain explicit probability statements about the likely risks or benefits involved in the proposed research. In this essay, I articulate a range of ethical and epistemic advantages that explicit forecasting would offer to the health research enterprise. I then consider how some particular confidence levels may come into conflict with the principles of ethical research.
- Research Ethics
- Philosophy of Medicine
- Clinical trials
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Should desperate volunteers be included in randomised controlled trials
- Research ethics for emerging trial designs: does equipoise need to adapt
- A case of insufficient evidence equipoise: the NICE guidance on antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infective endocarditis
- Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT - AI Extension
- Position statement on ethics, equipoise and research on charged particle radiation therapy
- Health policy and systems research: towards a better understanding and review of ethical issues
- Trials that say “ maybe ”: the disconnect between exploratory and confirmatory testing after drug approval
- Incorporating ethical principles into clinical research protocols: a tool for protocol writers and ethics committees
- Learning health systems, clinical equipoise and the ethics of response adaptive randomisation
- Controversial choice of a control intervention in a trial of ventilator therapy in ARDS: standard of care arguments in a randomised controlled trial