Article Text

Download PDFPDF
The limits of research institutions in setting research priorities
  1. Leah Pierson1,
  2. Joseph Millum2
  1. 1Clinical Center Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  2. 2Clinical Center Department of Bioethics/Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Joseph Millum, Clinical Center Department of Bioethics/Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, 10/1C118, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA; millumj{at}

Statistics from

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.

In When Clinical Trials Compete: Prioritizing Study Recruitment, Gelinas et al tackle an important issue—study non-completion—and draw conclusions with which we largely agree. Most importantly, we accept that setting priorities among competing research studies is necessary and should be informed by ethical analysis. We disagree with the conclusion of Gelinas et al that this priority setting should take place at the level of the individual research institution. At a minimum, they should consider other actors who might be better suited for this role instead of—or alongside—the institutions that host research.

Our view is motivated by three main considerations. First, research institutions have significant latitude to promote their own interests, and there is reason to suspect that their interests do not closely align with the interests of the public. Thus, asking research institutions to set research priorities may result in the selection of studies with suboptimal social value. Second, a large proportion of clinical trials recruits participants at multiple institutions.1 If each institution sets its own priorities, we can expect discrepancies between the priorities set by partner institutions. These discrepancies may delay and discourage collaborative research projects. Finally, we suspect that a great deal of recruitment competition occurs between, rather than within, research institutions. Setting priorities only at …

View Full Text


  • Contributors LP and JM developed the arguments in the manuscript. LP wrote the first draft. LP and JM revised the manuscript.

  • Funding National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

Other content recommended for you