- Building Services
- Center for Faculty Development
- Center for Online Learning
- College of Community Studies and Public Affairs
- College of Individualized Studies
- College of Liberal Arts
- College of Management
- College of Nursing and Health Sciences
- College of Sciences
- School of Urban Education
- Dean of Students Information
- Enrollment Management
- Equal Opportunity and Diversity Office
- Faculty Resources
- Financial Management
- Human Resources
- Human Subjects Review Board
- IT Services
- Institutional Research
- President's Office
- Provost's Office
- Safety and Security
- Staff Resources
- Student Outcome Data
- University Advancement
- University Directory
In recruiting or selecting subjects, an important consideration, in addition to requirements based on scientific merit and practicability, is whether or not the selection is fair and equitable [§46.111(a)(3)]. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the burdens of research fell largely upon poor patients in hospital wards, while the benefits flowed primarily to private patients. The inequity was starkly revealed in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, in which disadvantaged blacks in the rural south were recruited for studies of the untreated course of a disease that was by no means confined to that population. Such unjustified over-utilization of certain segments of the population led the National Commission to recommend that selection of research subjects be scrutinized to determine "whether some classes (e.g., welfare patients, racial and ethnic minorities or persons confined to institutions) are being systematically selected simply because of their easy availability, their compromised position or their manipulability, rather than for reasons directly related to the problem being studied."
As documented in the Belmont Report, the principle of justice is relevant to the selection of subjects of research at two levels: the social and the individual.
- Individual justice in the selection of subjects would require that researchers exhibit fairness: thus, they should not offer potentially beneficial research only to some patients who are in their favor or select only "undesirable" persons for risky research.
- Social justice requires that distinction be drawn between classes of subjects that ought, and ought not, to participate in any particular kind of research, based on the ability of members of that class to bear burdens and on the appropriateness of placing further burdens on already burdened persons. Thus, it can be considered a matter of social justice that there is an order of preference in the selection of classes of subjects (e.g., adults before children) and that some classes of potential subjects (e.g., the institutionalized mentally infirm or prisoners) may be involved as research subjects, if at all, only on certain conditions.
Injustice may appear in the selection of subjects, even if individual subjects are selected fairly by investigators and treated fairly in the course of research. Thus injustice arises from social, racial, sexual and cultural biases institutionalized in society. Thus, even if individual researchers are treating their research subjects fairly, and even if IRBs are taking care to assure that subjects are selected fairly within a particular institution, unjust social patterns may nevertheless appear in the overall distribution of the burdens and benefits of research. Although individual institutions or investigators may not be able to resolve a problem that is pervasive in their social setting, they can consider distributive justice in selecting research subjects.
Some populations, especially institutionalized ones, are already burdened in many ways by their infirmities and environments. When research is proposed that involves risks and does not include a therapeutic component, other less burdened classes of persons should be called upon first to accept these risks of research, except where the research is directly related to the specific conditions of the class involved. Also, even though public funds for research may often flow in the same directions as public funds for health care, it seems unfair that populations dependent on public health care constitute a pool of preferred research subjects if more advantaged populations are likely to be the recipients of the benefits.
One special instance of injustice results from the involvement of vulnerable subjects. Certain groups, such as racial minorities, the economically disadvantaged, the very sick and the institutionalized, may continually be sought as research subjects, owing to their ready availability in settings where research is conducted. Given their dependent status and their frequently compromised capacity for free consent, they should be protected against the danger of being involved in research solely for administrative convenience, or because they are easy to manipulate as a result of their illness or socioeconomic condition.
Just as the inclusion of disproportionate numbers of certain groups in research studies might overburden these groups without affording them the benefits that may result from the research, so will under-representation of groups ensure that they will not benefit from the research. As such, many research funding agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), require that research include minorities and women in study populations. If a proposed project includes a study population in which women and minorities are not appropriately represented, the investigator must provide "a clear and compelling rationale for their exclusion or inadequate representation."