生物医学研究中的脆弱性:生物医学研究中的脆弱性:历史反思及对艾滋病治疗相关研究的现实意义》(A Historical Reflection and Practical Implications for HIV Cure-Related Research.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 IMMUNOLOGY
AIDS research and human retroviruses Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-21 DOI:10.1089/AID.2022.0136
Emily Rao, Jeff Taylor, Andy Kaytes, Susanna Concha-Garcia, Patricia K Riggs, Davey M Smith, Karine Dubé, Sara Gianella
{"title":"生物医学研究中的脆弱性:生物医学研究中的脆弱性:历史反思及对艾滋病治疗相关研究的现实意义》(A Historical Reflection and Practical Implications for HIV Cure-Related Research.","authors":"Emily Rao, Jeff Taylor, Andy Kaytes, Susanna Concha-Garcia, Patricia K Riggs, Davey M Smith, Karine Dubé, Sara Gianella","doi":"10.1089/AID.2022.0136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The concept of vulnerability in bioethics was first referenced in 1979, when the Belmont Report highlighted the need for special consideration of certain populations in the application of its general principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice in research with human participants. Since then, a body of literature has emerged regarding the content, status, and scope, as well as ethical and practical implications of vulnerability in biomedical research. The social history of HIV treatment development has at various points reflected and actively influenced bioethics' debate on vulnerability. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, people with AIDS activist groups drafted landmark patient empowerment manifestos like The Denver Principles, fighting to have greater involvement in the design and oversight of clinical trials related to HIV treatment, and in doing so, pushed against research ethics protocols created with the intention of protecting vulnerable populations. The determination of appropriate benefit/risk profiles in clinical trials was no longer limited to the purview of clinicians and scientists, but began to include the perspectives of people with HIV (PWH) and affected communities. In contemporary HIV cure-related research, where participants often risk health for no personal clinical benefit, the community's voiced motivations and objectives for participation continue to challenge population-based accounts of vulnerability. While the development of a framework for discussion and the establishment of clear regulatory requirements are necessary to support the practical and ethical conduct of research, they risk distraction from the fundamental value of voluntary participation and potentially overlook the unique history and perspectives of PWH in their participation in the quest toward an HIV cure.</p>","PeriodicalId":7544,"journal":{"name":"AIDS research and human retroviruses","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10790546/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vulnerability in Biomedical Research: A Historical Reflection and Practical Implications for HIV Cure-Related Research.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Rao, Jeff Taylor, Andy Kaytes, Susanna Concha-Garcia, Patricia K Riggs, Davey M Smith, Karine Dubé, Sara Gianella\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/AID.2022.0136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The concept of vulnerability in bioethics was first referenced in 1979, when the Belmont Report highlighted the need for special consideration of certain populations in the application of its general principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice in research with human participants. Since then, a body of literature has emerged regarding the content, status, and scope, as well as ethical and practical implications of vulnerability in biomedical research. The social history of HIV treatment development has at various points reflected and actively influenced bioethics' debate on vulnerability. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, people with AIDS activist groups drafted landmark patient empowerment manifestos like The Denver Principles, fighting to have greater involvement in the design and oversight of clinical trials related to HIV treatment, and in doing so, pushed against research ethics protocols created with the intention of protecting vulnerable populations. The determination of appropriate benefit/risk profiles in clinical trials was no longer limited to the purview of clinicians and scientists, but began to include the perspectives of people with HIV (PWH) and affected communities. In contemporary HIV cure-related research, where participants often risk health for no personal clinical benefit, the community's voiced motivations and objectives for participation continue to challenge population-based accounts of vulnerability. While the development of a framework for discussion and the establishment of clear regulatory requirements are necessary to support the practical and ethical conduct of research, they risk distraction from the fundamental value of voluntary participation and potentially overlook the unique history and perspectives of PWH in their participation in the quest toward an HIV cure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7544,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AIDS research and human retroviruses\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10790546/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AIDS research and human retroviruses\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/AID.2022.0136\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AIDS research and human retroviruses","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/AID.2022.0136","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物伦理学中 "易损性 "的概念最早出现在 1979 年,当时《贝尔蒙特报告》强调,在对人类参 与者进行研究时,在应用尊重人、惠益和公正的一般原则时,需要特别考虑某些人群。从那时起,有关生物医学研究中脆弱性的内容、地位、范围以及伦理和实际影响的文献不断涌现。艾滋病治疗发展的社会历史在不同时期反映并积极影响了生命伦理学关于脆弱性的讨论。20 世纪 80 年代末和 90 年代初,艾滋病患者活动团体起草了《丹佛原则》等具有里程碑意义的患者赋权宣言,争取在更大程度上参与与艾滋病治疗相关的临床试验的设计和监督,并以此来反对以保护易感人群为目的而制定的研究伦理协议。在临床试验中确定适当的收益/风险概况不再局限于临床医生和科学家的职权范围,而是开始纳入艾滋病毒感染者(PWH)和受影响社区的观点。在当代与艾滋病治愈相关的研究中,参与者往往冒着健康风险,却得不到个人的临床利益,社区表达的参与动机和目标继续对基于人群的脆弱性描述提出挑战。虽然制定讨论框架和建立明确的监管要求对于支持研究的实际和伦理行为是必要的,但它们有可能偏离自愿参与的基本价值,并有可能忽视 PWH 在参与寻求艾滋病毒治愈过程中的独特历史和观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vulnerability in Biomedical Research: A Historical Reflection and Practical Implications for HIV Cure-Related Research.

The concept of vulnerability in bioethics was first referenced in 1979, when the Belmont Report highlighted the need for special consideration of certain populations in the application of its general principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice in research with human participants. Since then, a body of literature has emerged regarding the content, status, and scope, as well as ethical and practical implications of vulnerability in biomedical research. The social history of HIV treatment development has at various points reflected and actively influenced bioethics' debate on vulnerability. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, people with AIDS activist groups drafted landmark patient empowerment manifestos like The Denver Principles, fighting to have greater involvement in the design and oversight of clinical trials related to HIV treatment, and in doing so, pushed against research ethics protocols created with the intention of protecting vulnerable populations. The determination of appropriate benefit/risk profiles in clinical trials was no longer limited to the purview of clinicians and scientists, but began to include the perspectives of people with HIV (PWH) and affected communities. In contemporary HIV cure-related research, where participants often risk health for no personal clinical benefit, the community's voiced motivations and objectives for participation continue to challenge population-based accounts of vulnerability. While the development of a framework for discussion and the establishment of clear regulatory requirements are necessary to support the practical and ethical conduct of research, they risk distraction from the fundamental value of voluntary participation and potentially overlook the unique history and perspectives of PWH in their participation in the quest toward an HIV cure.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
201
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses was the very first AIDS publication in the field over 30 years ago, and today it is still the critical resource advancing research in retroviruses, including AIDS. The Journal provides the broadest coverage from molecular biology to clinical studies and outcomes research, focusing on developments in prevention science, novel therapeutics, and immune-restorative approaches. Cutting-edge papers on the latest progress and research advances through clinical trials and examination of targeted antiretroviral agents lead to improvements in translational medicine for optimal treatment outcomes. AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses coverage includes: HIV cure research HIV prevention science - Vaccine research - Systemic and Topical PreP Molecular and cell biology of HIV and SIV Developments in HIV pathogenesis and comorbidities Molecular biology, immunology, and epidemiology of HTLV Pharmacology of HIV therapy Social and behavioral science Rapid publication of emerging sequence information.
×
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