States of Uncertainty, Risk-Benefit Assessment and Early Clinical Research: A Conceptual Investigation.

IF 2.7 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Antje Schnarr, Marcel Mertz
{"title":"States of Uncertainty, Risk-Benefit Assessment and Early Clinical Research: A Conceptual Investigation.","authors":"Antje Schnarr,&nbsp;Marcel Mertz","doi":"10.1007/s11948-022-00418-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It can be argued that there is an ethical requirement to classify correctly what is known and what is unknown in decision situations, especially in the context of biomedicine when risks and benefits have to be assessed. This is because other methods for assessing potential harms and benefits, decision logics and/or ethical principles may apply depending on the kind or degree of uncertainty. However, it is necessary to identify and describe the various epistemic states of uncertainty relevant to such estimates in the first place. Therefore, this paper aims to develop a category system of different epistemic states of uncertainty which, although not exclusively, is primarily intended to be applied to early clinical trials. It is formed on the basis-and various combinations-of three dimensions of uncertainty that represent certain parts of incomplete knowledge: outcome (type of event), probability (of outcome) and evaluation (assessment of outcome). Furthermore, it is argued that uncertainty can arise from three different sources (the structure of the object of research, the state of the evidence, or individual handling of the research and already existing knowledge). The categories developed are applied to actual examples from gene therapy and genome editing to illustrate that they can be helpful for a more precise definition of the respective uncertainties, especially in the context of risk-benefit assessment. The categories allow a differentiated perspective of decision-making situations from the point of view of incomplete knowledge in general, but particularly, for example, in early clinical research, and may thereby support a more acceptable ethical assessment of potential harms and benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"28 6","pages":"68"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9747817/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00418-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It can be argued that there is an ethical requirement to classify correctly what is known and what is unknown in decision situations, especially in the context of biomedicine when risks and benefits have to be assessed. This is because other methods for assessing potential harms and benefits, decision logics and/or ethical principles may apply depending on the kind or degree of uncertainty. However, it is necessary to identify and describe the various epistemic states of uncertainty relevant to such estimates in the first place. Therefore, this paper aims to develop a category system of different epistemic states of uncertainty which, although not exclusively, is primarily intended to be applied to early clinical trials. It is formed on the basis-and various combinations-of three dimensions of uncertainty that represent certain parts of incomplete knowledge: outcome (type of event), probability (of outcome) and evaluation (assessment of outcome). Furthermore, it is argued that uncertainty can arise from three different sources (the structure of the object of research, the state of the evidence, or individual handling of the research and already existing knowledge). The categories developed are applied to actual examples from gene therapy and genome editing to illustrate that they can be helpful for a more precise definition of the respective uncertainties, especially in the context of risk-benefit assessment. The categories allow a differentiated perspective of decision-making situations from the point of view of incomplete knowledge in general, but particularly, for example, in early clinical research, and may thereby support a more acceptable ethical assessment of potential harms and benefits.

Abstract Image

不确定状态,风险-收益评估和早期临床研究:一项概念性调查。
可以认为,在决策情况下,特别是在必须评估风险和利益的生物医学背景下,对已知和未知进行正确分类是一种道德要求。这是因为根据不确定性的种类或程度,可能适用其他评估潜在危害和利益、决策逻辑和/或伦理原则的方法。然而,有必要首先识别和描述与此类估计相关的各种不确定性认知状态。因此,本文旨在开发一个不同的不确定性认知状态的类别系统,虽然不是唯一的,但主要是为了应用于早期临床试验。它是在代表不完全知识的某些部分的三个不确定性维度的基础上形成的——以及各种组合:结果(事件类型)、概率(结果)和评估(结果的评估)。此外,有人认为不确定性可能来自三个不同的来源(研究对象的结构,证据的状态,或个人对研究和已有知识的处理)。开发的分类应用于基因治疗和基因组编辑的实际示例,以说明它们可以帮助更精确地定义各自的不确定性,特别是在风险-收益评估的背景下。这些分类允许从一般不完全知识的角度对决策情况有不同的看法,特别是,例如,在早期临床研究中,因此可能支持对潜在危害和益处进行更可接受的伦理评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信