Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Clinical Trials
- Creators: Hurlbut, Ben
- Member of: Theses and Dissertations
Description
The HIV pandemic spawned a global biomedical research effort which continues today. Because of multinational clinical studies, doctors and health officials possess more tools than ever before for the effective prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. The relationship between the United States and Sub-Saharan African nations features prominently within this global research effort. More specifically, many of the most significant HIV-related research findings emanate from clinical trials with a unique multinational configuration: the study protocol is largely designed and funded by American sources but executed at clinical research sites in Sub-Saharan African countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe. This thesis investigates the context and ethics of this configuration, with a focus on US-backed trials conducted in South Africa specifically. Using data collected from semi-structured interviews conducted at South African HIV clinical research sites, this thesis uncovers two significant ethical problems: insufficient benefits delivered to South African clinical trial participants, and informal processes occurring alongside formal protocol. By examining scope, effects, and implications of these problems, it becomes clear that although this research system delivers powerful results, there exists room for improvement.
ContributorsGill, Kohinoor Singh (Author) / Hurlbut, Ben (Thesis director) / Ripley, Charles (Committee member) / Vanig, Thanes (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / WPC Graduate Programs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
In 1996, President Clinton ordered the formation of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), which undertook to evaluate the morality of a myriad of secret and publicized radiation experiments ranging from 1944 to 1974. The goal of this thesis is to analyze the ways in which that committee formed moral evaluations and the extent to which its strategies related to a broader historical and philosophical discourse. Here I attempt to describe two specific techniques of simplification the committee deploys in order to make a retrospective moral analysis possible. Although the techniques comprise specific problems, frameworks, subjective perspectives, and conceptual links, their unifying principle is the field of choices the techniques produce. In the first technique I outline, I argue that by focusing on the problem of historical relativism, the committee gains a platform through which it would be granted flexibility in making a distinction between moral wrongdoing and blameworthiness. In the second technique of simplification I outline, I argue that the committee's incorporation of a principle to reduce uncertainty as an ethical aim allow it to establish new ways to reconcile scientific aims with moral responsibility. In addition to describing the structure of these techniques, I also demonstrate how they relate to the specific experiments the analysts aim to evaluate, using both the ACHRE experiments as well as the Nuremberg Trial experiments as my examples. My hope is not to show why a given committee made a particular moral evaluation, or to say whether a decision was right or wrong, but rather to illustrate how certain techniques open up a field of choices that allow moral analysts to form retrospective moral judgments.
ContributorsCirjan, Cristian (Author) / Hurlbut, Ben (Thesis director) / Humphrey, Ted (Committee member) / Zachary, Gregg (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
Animal testing is a long-running institution in biomedical research that is seen as a necessary step in the development of new drugs and treatments in the United States. Using animal models that have biological similarities to humans, it is assumed that we can ethically perform basic research that is translatable to human health. However, recent years have seen this assumption challenged by the fact that most preclinical research fails to survive the gauntlet of human trials into a functioning treatment on the market. This has marked ethical implications for both the people that depend on new treatments for their health, and the animals used in the research themselves. The purpose of this thesis is to develop solutions for the problems facing animal testing in the United States. First, I identify the political and economic basis of the modern system of animal testing by examining legislation and the IACUCs that govern animal research to understand why the practice continues to be used despite its low rate of success. I then examine factors such as epigenetics and the laboratory environment to explain reasons why animal research fails to translate to humans. Finally, I cover new in-vitro methods such as organoids and organ-on-a-chip technologies to show the potential that alternatives hold for biomedical research. As a result of this analysis, I propose the further integration of alternatives into our system of animal testing to make up for the translational failures the field currently experiences. I also highlight the importance of having IACUCs balanced between animal researchers and members of the public to improve the welfare of animals used in research and increase the transparency of their work. Including more animals into the Animal Welfare Act is also proposed to better standardize our treatment of them and keep experimental results more consistent.
ContributorsCammann, Davis Bukovi (Author) / Barca, Lisa (Thesis director) / Hurlbut, Ben (Committee member) / Sterner, Beckett (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor, Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-12