Generalizations in Clinical Trials—Do Generics Help Or Harm?

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Benjamin Chin-Yee
{"title":"Generalizations in Clinical Trials—Do Generics Help Or Harm?","authors":"Benjamin Chin-Yee","doi":"10.1353/ken.2023.a931051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Generalizations in medical research can be informative, but also misleading. Building on recent work in the philosophy of science and ethics of communication, I offer a novel analysis of common generalizations in clinical trials as generics in natural language. Generics, which express generalizations without terms of quantification, have attracted considerable attention from philosophers, psychologists, and linguists. My analysis draws on probabilistic and contextual features of generics to diagnose how these generalizations function and malfunction across communicative contexts in medicine. Given a high risk of misinterpretation (\"slippage\"), I recommend avoidance of generic claims about medical interventions in public contexts, exemplified by clinical trials and medical research more generally. Generics should only be used with vigilance in private contexts, exemplified by the physician–patient encounter. My analysis provides tools to support vigilance when communicating with generics, suggests new norms for public science communication, and raises deeper questions in the ethics of clinical communication.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":46167,"journal":{"name":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2023.a931051","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Generalizations in medical research can be informative, but also misleading. Building on recent work in the philosophy of science and ethics of communication, I offer a novel analysis of common generalizations in clinical trials as generics in natural language. Generics, which express generalizations without terms of quantification, have attracted considerable attention from philosophers, psychologists, and linguists. My analysis draws on probabilistic and contextual features of generics to diagnose how these generalizations function and malfunction across communicative contexts in medicine. Given a high risk of misinterpretation ("slippage"), I recommend avoidance of generic claims about medical interventions in public contexts, exemplified by clinical trials and medical research more generally. Generics should only be used with vigilance in private contexts, exemplified by the physician–patient encounter. My analysis provides tools to support vigilance when communicating with generics, suggests new norms for public science communication, and raises deeper questions in the ethics of clinical communication.

临床试验中的概括--仿制药是有益还是有害?
医学研究中的概括可以提供信息,但也可能产生误导。在科学哲学和传播伦理学近期研究的基础上,我对临床试验中常见的概括进行了新颖的分析,将其视为自然语言中的泛指。概括语是一种不用量化术语来表达概括的语言,已经引起了哲学家、心理学家和语言学家的广泛关注。我的分析借鉴了概括语的概率和语境特征,以诊断这些概括语在医学交际语境中是如何发挥作用和失灵的。鉴于误解("失误")的风险很高,我建议避免在公共语境中对医疗干预措施进行泛指,临床试验和医学研究就是更普遍的例子。只有在私下场合,例如医生与患者的接触中,才应警惕地使用通用语。我的分析提供了在传播非专利药时保持警惕的工具,提出了公共科学传播的新规范,并提出了临床传播伦理方面更深层次的问题。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal offers a scholarly forum for diverse views on major issues in bioethics, such as analysis and critique of principlism, feminist perspectives in bioethics, the work of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, active euthanasia, genetics, health care reform, and organ transplantation. Each issue includes "Scope Notes," an overview and extensive annotated bibliography on a specific topic in bioethics, and "Bioethics Inside the Beltway," a report written by a Washington insider updating bioethics activities on the federal level.
×
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