Summary
American bioethics, historically arising out of theology and philosophy, has been dominated by the method of normative analysis. Ethics as policy, however, requires in addition a solid evidence base. This paper discusses the background conditions that make neurotherapeutics research particularly challenging. Three key ethical issues are discussed within an evidence-based ethics framework: the ethical challenges arising from changes in the financial incentive structures for academic researchers and their institutions, the challenges of risk—benefit analysis for neurotherapeutics protocols testing innovative interventions, and the evolving issues surrounding impaired decision-making capacity and surrogate consent for research. For each of these issues, selected empirical data are reviewed, areas for further inquiry are noted, and the need for development of novel methods for bioethics policy research is discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Orgogozo JM, Gilman S, Dartigues JF, Laurent B, Puel M, Kirby LC et al. Subacute meningoencephalitis in a subset of patients with AD after Aβ42 immunization.Neurology 61: 46–54, 2003.
Silverberg GD, Levinthal E, Sullivan EV, Bloch DA, Chang SD, Leverenz J et al. Assessment of low-flow CSF drainage as a treatment for AD: results of a randomized pilot study.Neurology 59: 1139–1145, 2002.
Hock C, Konietzko U, Streffer J, Tracy J, Signorell A, Muller-Tillmanns B et al. Antibodies against β-amyloid slow cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease.Neuron 38: 547–554, 2003.
Kim SYH, Caine ED, Currier GW, Leibovici A, Ryan JM. Assessing the competence of persons with Alzheimer’s disease in providing informed consent for participation in research.Am J Psychiatry 158: 712–717, 2001.
Carpenter WT Jr, Gold J, Lahti A, Queern C, Conley R, Bartko J et al. Decisional capacity for informed consent in schizophrenia research.Arch Gen Psychiatry 57: 533–538, 2000.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decision making capacity, Vol 1, report and recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: NBAC, 1998.
Neuroethics: mapping the field: conference proceedings, May 13–14, 2002, San Franciso, California (Marcus S, ed). New York: The Dana Press, 2002.
Jonsen AR. The birth of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Stolberg SG. The biotech death of Jesse Gelsinger.N Y Times Mag Nov 28: 136–140, 149–150, 1999.
Kolata G. Johns Hopkins Death Brings Halt to U.S.-financed human studies.N Y Times Mag Jul 20: A1, A18, 2001.
Marshall E. Shutdown of research at Duke sends a message.Science 284:1999.
National Institutes of Health. Required education in the protection of human research participants. NOTICE: OD-00-039, June 5, 2000.
Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs, Inc. AAHRPP website, 2002.
Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research. Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress—policy and guidelines for the oversight of individual financial interest in human subjects research. Association of American Medical Colleges, 2001.
Task Force on Research Accountability. Report on individual and institutional financial conflict of interest. Association of American Universities, 2001.
Wilson D, Heath D. Class-action suit filed against ‘The Hutch’.Seattle Times Mar 27, 2001.
Mello MM, Studdert D, Brennan TA. The rise of litigation in human subjects research.Ann Intern Med 139: 40–45, 2003.
Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical?JAMA 283: 2701–2711, 2000.
Blumenthal D. Ethics issues in academic-industry relationships in the life sciences: the continuing debate.Acad Med 71: 1291–1296, 1996.
Emanuel EJ, Steiner D. Institutional conflict of interest.N Engl J Med 332: 262–267, 1995.
Frankel MS. Perception, reality, and the political context of conflict of interest in university-industry relationships.Acad Med 71: 1297–1304, 1996.
Munro N. Doctor Who?Washington Monthly Nov 2002.
Karlawish J. The search for a coherent language: the science and politics of drug testing and approval. In: Ethics, law, and aging review, Vol 8, Issues in conducting research with and about older persons (Kapp MB, ed), pp 39–56. New York: Springer, 2002.
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.JAMA 289: 454, 2003.
Nathan DG, Weatherall DJ. Academic freedom in clinical research.N Engl J Med 347: 1368–1371, 2002.
Shuchman M. Legal issues surrounding privately funded research cause furore in Toronto.CMAJ 159: 983–986, 1998.
Rennie D. Thyroid storm.JAMA 277: 1238–1243, 1997.
Stelfox H, Chua G, O’Rourke K, Detsky A. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists.N Engl J Med 338: 101–106, 1998.
Levine J, Gussow JD, Hastings D, Eccher A. Authors’ financial relationships with the food and beverage industry and their published positions on the fat substitute olestra.Am J Public Health 93: 664, 2003.
Pieters T. Marketing medicines through randomised controlled trials: the case of interferon.Br Med J 317: 1231–1233, 1998.
Blumenthal D. Academic-industry relationships in the life sciences. Extent, consequences, and management.JAMA 268: 3344–3349, 1992.
Safer DJ. Design and reporting modifications in industry-sponsored comparative psychopharmacology trials.J Nerv Ment Dis 190: 583–592, 2002.
Baker CB, Johnsrud MT, Crismon ML, Rosenheck RA, Woods SW. Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants.Br J Psychiatry 183: 498–506, 2003.
Libby R, Bloomfield R, Nelson M. Experimental research in financial accounting.Accounting, Organizations and Society 27: 775–810, 2002.
Bazerman M, Loewenstein G, Moore D. Why good accountants do bad audits.Harv Bus Rev 80: 96–102, 134, 2002.
Messick DM, Bazerman MH. Ethical leadership and the psychology of decision making.Sloan Manage Rev 37: 9–22, 1996.
Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry.JAMA 290: 252, 2003.
Sugarman J, Faden R, Weinstein J. A decade of empirical research in medical ethics. In: Methods in medical ethics (Sugarman J, Sulmasy DP, eds), pp 19–28. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001.
Weijer C. Thinking clearly about research risk: implications of the work of Benjamin Freedman.IRB 21: 1–5, 1999.
Keyserlingk EW. Proposed guidelines for the participation of persons with dementia as research subjects.Perspect Biol Med 38: 319–362, 1995.
Meslin E, Lavery J, Sutherland H, Till J. Judging the ethical merit of clinical trials: what criteria do research ethics board members use?IRB 16: 6–10, 1994.
Sunderland T, Linker G, Mirza N, Putnam KT, Friedman DL, Kimmel LH et al. Decreased β-amyloid1-42 and increased tau levels in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with Alzheimer disease.JAMA 289: 2094–2103, 2003.
Kim SYH, Appelbaum PS, Jeste DV, Olin J. Proxy and surrogate consent in geriatric neuropsychiatric research: update and recommendations.Am J Psychiatry 161: 797–806, 2004.
Macklin R. The ethical problems with sham surgery in clinical research.N Engl J Med 341: 992–996, 1999.
Weijer C. I need a placebo like I need a hole in the head.J Law Med Ethics 30: 69–72, 2002.
Albin RL. Sham surgery controls: intracerebral grafting of fetal tissue for Parkinson’s disease and proposed criteria for use of sham surgery controls.J Med Ethics 28: 322–325, 2002.
Grady D, Kolata G. Gene therapy used to treat patients with Parkinson’s.N Y Times Mag Aug 19, 2003.
Miller M. Phase I oncology trials. In: Institutional review board: management and function (Amdur R, Bankert E, eds), pp 465–475. Sudbury, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett, 2002.
Wendler D, Martinez RA, Fairclough D, Sunderland T, Emanuel E. Views of potential subjects toward proposed regulations for clinical research with adults unable to consent.Am J Psychiatry 159: 585–591, 2002.
Janofsky J, Starfield B. Assessment of risk in research on children.J Pediatr 98: 842–846, 1981.
Payne J, Bettman J, Schkade D. Measuring constructed preferences: toward a building code.J Risk Uncertain 19: 243–270, 1999.
Fischhoff B. Cognitive processes in stated preference methods. In: Handbook of environmental economics (Mäler K-G, Vincent J, eds). North-Holland: Elsevier, 2002.
Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes.Soc Sci Med 57: 239–251, 2003.
Gutmann A, Thompson D. Deliberating about bioethics.Hastings Cent Rep 27: 38–41, 1997.
Gutmann A, Thompson D. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.
Nelson RM. Voluntariness of consent for research: an empirical and conceptual review.Med Care 40[Suppl 9]: V69-V80, 2002.
Roberts LW. Informed consent and the capacity for voluntarism.Am J Psychiatry 159: 705–712, 2002.
Kim SYH, Karlawish JHT, Caine ED. Current state of research on decision-making competence of cognitively impaired elderly persons.Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 10: 151–165, 2002.
Appelbaum PS, Grisso T, Frank E, O’Donnell S, Kupfer D. Competence of depressed patients for consent to research.Am J Psychiatry 156: 1380–1384, 1999.
Dymek M, Atchison P, Harrell L, Marson DC. Competency to consent to medical treatment in cognitively impaired patients with Parkinson’s disease.Neurology 56: 17–24, 2001.
Moser DJ, Schultz SK, Arndt S, Benjamin ML, Fleming FW, Brems CS et al. Capacity to provide informed consent for participation in schizophrenia and HIV research.Am J Psychiatry 159: 1201–1207, 2002.
Dunn LB, Lindamer LA, Palmer BW, Schneiderman LJ, Jeste DV. Enhancing comprehension of consent for research in older patients with psychosis: a randomized study of a novel consent procedure.Am J Psychiatry 158: 1911–1913, 2001.
Wirshing DA, Wirshing WC, Marder SR, Liberman RP, Mintz J. Informed consent: assessment of comprehension.Am J Psychiatry 155: 1508–1511, 1998.
Marson DC, Ingram KK, Cody HA, Harrell LE. Assessing the competency of patients with Alzheimer’s disease under different legal standards. A prototype instrument.Arch Neurol 52: 949–954, 1995.
Kim S, Caine ED. Utility and limits of the mini mental state examination in evaluating consent capacity in Alzheimer’s disease.Psychiatr Serv 53: 1322–1324, 2002.
Mezey M, Teresi J, Ramsey G, Mitty E, Bobrowitz T. Decision-making capacity to execute a health care proxy: development and testing of guidelines.J Am Geriatr Soc 48: 179–187, 2000.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, S.Y.H. Evidence-based ethics for neurology and psychiatry research. Neurotherapeutics 1, 372–377 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1602/neurorx.1.3.372
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1602/neurorx.1.3.372