The ethics of benefit sharing has been a topical issue in global health research in resource-limited countries. It pertains to the distribution of goods, benefits and advantages to the research participants, communities and countries that are involved in research. One of the nuances in benefit sharing is the ethical justification on which the concept should be based. Extensive literature outlining the different principles underlying benefit sharing is available. The purpose of this paper is to examine the proposed principles using Aristotelian principles of justice. The paper assesses the central idea of Aristotelian justice and applies and evaluates this idea to benefit sharing in research, especially when commercial research sponsors conduct research in resource-limited countries. Two categories of Aristotelian justice—universal and particular—were examined and their contribution to the benefit-sharing discourse assessed. On the one hand, benefit sharing in accordance with universal justice requires that for-profit research sponsors obey the legal regulations and international standards set for benefit sharing. On the other hand, benefit sharing in accordance with particular justice transcends obeying legal requirements and standards to a realm of acting in an ethically accepted manner. Accordingly, the paper further examines three perspectives of particular justice and develops ethical justification for benefit sharing in global health research. As Aristotelian justice is still relevant to the contemporary discourse on justice, this paper broadens the ethical justifications of benefit sharing in global health research.
- International Affairs
- Philosophical Ethics
- Research Ethics
- Public Health Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Contributors The article was developed at various stages of the drafted manuscript. BD and KD contributed equally to the first draft. BD elaborated the various stages of the manuscript with thorough revision, editing and mentoring from KD during the pre-publication process. Both authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Appropriateness of no-fault compensation for research-related injuries from an African perspective: an appeal for action by African countries
- Sharing the benefits of research fairly: two approaches
- Research for Health Justice: an ethical framework linking global health research to health equity
- How to prevent and address safeguarding concerns in global health research programmes: practice, process and positionality in marginalised spaces
- HIV prevention research and global inequality: steps towards improved standards of care*
- Should institutions fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research?
- In need of remedy: US policy for compensating injured research participants
- Regulation of biomedical research in Africa
- An exploration of practices affecting research integrity in global health partnerships
- Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) statement: guidelines for good epidemiological practice