To give substance to the rhetoric of ‘learning health systems’, a variety of novel trial designs are being explored to more seamlessly integrate research with medical practice, reduce study duration and reduce the number of participants allocated to ineffective interventions. Many of these designs rely on response adaptive randomisation (RAR). However, critics charge that RAR is unethical on the grounds that it violates the principle of equipoise. In this paper, I reconstruct critiques of RAR as holding that it is inconsistent with five important ethical principles. I then argue that these criticisms rest on a faulty view of equipoise encouraged by the idea that a RAR study models the beliefs of a single rational agent about the relative merits of the interventions being studied. I outline a view in which RAR models an idealised health system in which diverse communities of fully informed experts shrink or grow as their constituent members update their expert opinions in light of reliable medical evidence. I show how a proper understanding of clinical equipoise can reconcile this conception of RAR with these five ethical principles. This analysis removes an in-principle objection to RAR and sheds important light on the relationship between clinical equipoise and transient diversity in the scientific community.
- research ethics
- clinical trials
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 AJL conceived and wrote this paper.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Non-static framework for understanding adaptive designs: an ethical justification in paediatric trials
- Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test
- Equipoise dumbbell
- Contextual equipoise: a novel concept to inform ethical implications for implementation research in low-income and middle-income countries
- Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller’s “Assessing research risks systematically”
- Distinguishing treatment from research: a functional approach
- Reconsidering ‘minimal risk’ to expand the repertoire of trials with waiver of informed consent for research
- Position statement on ethics, equipoise and research on charged particle radiation therapy
- Estimating the social value of mechanical thrombectomy randomized trials on an established stroke network
- The Ebola clinical trials: a precedent for research ethics in disasters