It is time to heed Solomon Benatar's call to disrupt the global research ethics paradigm.

IF 1.2
J V Lavery, R E G Upshur, P A Singer, E M Meslin
{"title":"It is time to heed Solomon Benatar's call to disrupt the global research ethics paradigm.","authors":"J V Lavery, R E G Upshur, P A Singer, E M Meslin","doi":"10.7196/SAMJ.2026.v116i6b.4040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The history of research in low- and middle-income countries is rife with practices that have extracted the time, energy, data, biological samples and, in many cases, the health and lives of those who participated, often justified by beliefs about their racial, cultural and civilisational inferiority. As global health research expanded in the late 20th century, this history raised substantial ethical concerns, including exploitation, double standards and the broader social, economic and political contexts in which international research occurs. Although research has contributed to reductions in mortality, morbidity and poverty, its benefits continue to accrue disproportionately to the wealthiest countries, even as access to the fruits of science has been recognised as a human right. In 1999, Prof. Solomon Benatar challenged the Global Forum for Bioethics in Research to confront research as an 'extractive enterprise' and to acknowledge the need for 'a paradigm shift in thinking and action', grounded in interdependence, duties, social justice and the promotion of human flourishing. The prevailing global paradigm, shaped largely by the US Common Rule regulations, emphasises institutional accountability, standardised procedures and a protectionist focus on individual research participants through regulatory compliance. Despite its influence, it remains unclear whether this model has advanced Prof. Benatar's vision of a research enterprise that fosters inclusiveness and promotes the broader societal value of research. We outline possible shifts toward a more proactive, creative, inclusive, context-sensitive and innovative model that embraces empirical testing and global learning, with an emphasis on creating social value. These shifts reflect Prof. Benatar's lifelong commitment to moral imagination, his call to reject extractive practices and his vision of a global research enterprise that enhances human flourishing, especially for the world's most disadvantaged populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":520778,"journal":{"name":"South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde","volume":"116 6b","pages":"e4040"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2026.v116i6b.4040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The history of research in low- and middle-income countries is rife with practices that have extracted the time, energy, data, biological samples and, in many cases, the health and lives of those who participated, often justified by beliefs about their racial, cultural and civilisational inferiority. As global health research expanded in the late 20th century, this history raised substantial ethical concerns, including exploitation, double standards and the broader social, economic and political contexts in which international research occurs. Although research has contributed to reductions in mortality, morbidity and poverty, its benefits continue to accrue disproportionately to the wealthiest countries, even as access to the fruits of science has been recognised as a human right. In 1999, Prof. Solomon Benatar challenged the Global Forum for Bioethics in Research to confront research as an 'extractive enterprise' and to acknowledge the need for 'a paradigm shift in thinking and action', grounded in interdependence, duties, social justice and the promotion of human flourishing. The prevailing global paradigm, shaped largely by the US Common Rule regulations, emphasises institutional accountability, standardised procedures and a protectionist focus on individual research participants through regulatory compliance. Despite its influence, it remains unclear whether this model has advanced Prof. Benatar's vision of a research enterprise that fosters inclusiveness and promotes the broader societal value of research. We outline possible shifts toward a more proactive, creative, inclusive, context-sensitive and innovative model that embraces empirical testing and global learning, with an emphasis on creating social value. These shifts reflect Prof. Benatar's lifelong commitment to moral imagination, his call to reject extractive practices and his vision of a global research enterprise that enhances human flourishing, especially for the world's most disadvantaged populations.

是时候听从Solomon Benatar的呼吁,打破全球研究伦理范式了。
在低收入和中等收入国家的研究历史中,经常有榨取参与者的时间、精力、数据、生物样本,在许多情况下还榨取参与者的健康和生命的做法,这些做法往往以其种族、文化和文明劣势的信念为理由。随着全球卫生研究在20世纪后期的扩大,这段历史引起了重大的伦理关切,包括剥削、双重标准以及国际研究所处的更广泛的社会、经济和政治背景。尽管研究对降低死亡率、发病率和贫困率做出了贡献,但即使获得科学成果已被公认为一项人权,它的好处仍然不成比例地集中在最富裕的国家。1999年,Solomon Benatar教授向全球研究生物伦理论坛提出挑战,要求将研究视为一项“采掘企业”,并承认需要在相互依存、责任、社会正义和促进人类繁荣的基础上“转变思维和行动模式”。目前盛行的全球范式主要由美国共同规则(Common Rule)法规形成,强调机构问责制、标准化程序,以及通过遵守监管对研究参与者个人的保护主义关注。尽管有其影响力,但目前尚不清楚这种模式是否推动了Benatar教授的研究企业愿景,即培养包容性并促进研究的更广泛社会价值。我们概述了向更具前瞻性、创造性、包容性、环境敏感性和创新性模式的可能转变,该模式包括经验检验和全球学习,重点是创造社会价值。这些转变反映了贝纳塔尔教授毕生致力于道德想象,他呼吁拒绝采伐行为,以及他对全球研究事业促进人类繁荣的愿景,尤其是对世界上最弱势群体的研究。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书