Language: English

Meeting Summary

Presented on: March 10, 2025

This meeting was presented to the Bioethics Collaborative. The Bioethics Collaborative is a forum to propose, share, and discuss ethical challenges in multi-national clinical trials. Meetings convene individuals from academia, industry, patient/participant groups, ethics committees, government, and others.

Abstract: Since funding and other resources for clinical research are limited, decisions must be made about which research projects to pursue, which not to pursue, and how to prioritize among the studies that are chosen. The principle of “unmet medical need” is often acknowledged as a guiding consideration in this context, and there have been calls for community input into prioritization and the choice of the study question. Further, addressing unmet medical needs, particularly in the context of the global burden of disease, is important for public health but may not, and likely will not, maximize market opportunity or financial profits – a dynamic that is particularly salient for private industry sponsors. Should prioritization then rest solely or principally with the funder? How should such entities balance economic obligations toward shareholders with the public good?

One salient principle of distributive justice is “prioritarianism,” the idea that research that stands to benefit the worse-off or those who are already underprivileged should be given priority over research that stands to benefit people in better situations: the well-being of the most disadvantaged is prioritized. Even prior to this, however, questions arise over how to understand the expected goods of research, who the beneficiaries might be, and how the well-being of different possible beneficiary groups should be measured. Further downstream, issues arise over who should engage in prioritization decisions, and in particular, whether the research community should rely solely on high-level, centralized prioritization mechanisms (e.g., industry sponsors, NIH, non-profit funders), or whether individual institutions, local communities, and/or patients and their allies might have some role to play in ensuring that studies are appropriately prioritized at a local level. How should these various voices be heard, should they be represented, and how can—or should—balance be achieved, and if so, what processes should be considered? The March Bioethics Collaborative will seek to address these and other issues in connection with the ethics of research priority-setting.  

Meeting Summary

Presented on: June 4, 2025

This meeting was presented to the Bioethics Collaborative. The Bioethics Collaborative is a forum to propose, share, and discuss ethical challenges in multi-national clinical trials. Meetings convene individuals from academia, industry, patient/participant groups, ethics committees, government, and others.

Abstract: The lines between research and care continue to blur. Pragmatic research studies comparing accepted therapies are increasingly embedded seamlessly into clinical practice. More and more, participation in research deemed promising is offered to patients before standard therapies are exhausted, sometimes as a first-line option. While the concept of “therapeutic misconception”—in very broad strokes, the tendency for individuals to misapply attributes of clinical care to research—has been a mainstay of research ethics for over 40 years, these developments provide an occasion, and perhaps even an urgent need, to revisit it and related topics. How exactly should we understand the therapeutic misconception and what it involves, particularly in cases where the line between research and care really is vague and hard to determine? Even more basically, how should we understand the relationship between research and care in the first place? Are concerns over therapeutic misconception still important, or do they perhaps reflect naïve understandings of research and care and the relation between them–particularly in cases where current options are limited?