Search results

Research sponsored by entities in developed countries, but conducted in developing countries, has recently been the focus of academic debate, international declarations and media controversy. Much of this attention has focused on whether the trials are exploitative and if so what should be done to avoid exploitation. This chapter takes Alan Wertheimer's principles of mutually advantageous transactions and applies them to the question of exploitation in international research. In this chapter, I develop an analysis of exploitation and apply this to the hypothesis that some pharmaceutical companies who run drug trials in developing countries wrongfully exploit the trial participants.

In this chapter, I address a number of the difficult questions surrounding the current decline of the American trial. I begin with a compressed and evaluative account of what the contemporary trial is for us. This involves both an account of what we do at trial and a more global account of its significance. I discuss some of the theoretical issues that such an account poses. I then provide a short account of how we have gotten to where we are (“the past”). I provide a summary of recent social scientific findings that suggest that the trial is in current decline and some preliminary speculations as to the explanations for that decline (“the future”). Finally, I suggest the happy possibility that explanation of the future may be quite limited in this matter.

After considering the material before me, I have formed the opinion that it shall be permitted for the petitioner to examine the file under scrutiny. Deliberation on the case did not take place behind closed doors and there is no lawful prohibition to the examination…in addition I accept the position of the respondent, according to which in spite of the fact that a large portion of the details of the affair were published in the judgment…the file contains material whose revelation can cause unnecessary harm to the central witness…the examination considered will be contingent on an undertaking in writing…according to which the petitioner will not publicize anything that will damage the privacy of the victims and their families beyond the damage that already occurred by the court judgment. (Decision of magistrate Yigaal Marzel, 2006 in the matter of C.A 125/50 Yaakobowitz v. Attorney General)

This chapter explicates the logic of a computational agent-based model bearing on the willingness of perpetrator agents to conduct genocidal actions against Jewish people during World War II. Given realistic distributions of benefits and costs and sufficient time, as a joint consequence of these distributions and interpersonal influence the model readily creates agents who are avowed anti-Semites, Nazis, and perpetrators of the genocide, even transforming agents characterized initially by lower levels of anti-Semitism. Although many agents initially exhibit dissonance (i.e., a disjunction) between their attitudes and choices, toward the end of this period their anti-Semitic attitudes and choices become consonant (i.e., internally consistent). Experiments and parameter studies using this model indicate that different distributions of benefits and costs, changed legitimacy of authority, and different values of anti-Semitism of influential agents can modify the growth of prejudice, Nazism, and genocidal choices in these random-number-based Monte Carlo trials. The results clarify the conflicting interpretations of Goldhagen and Browning concerning the genocidal actions of a battalion of perpetrators and the role of propaganda in reducing moral costs. Six hypotheses that focus the testing of the model can be generalized creating insights about other genocides.

The chapter considers the ethical problems engendered by random assignment and privacy concerns in randomised controlled experiments and cluster randomised trials. The particular focus is on procedural, legislative and technical approaches to reducing or avoiding the problems. Examples are given from a variety of disciplines including health and education, though the main emphasis is on research in crime and delinquency.

The International Criminal Court has institutionalized the concept of individual responsibility for human rights violations. The jurisprudence of international criminal law has developed along with the institution. Affirmative defenses in the mitigation of punishment or avoidance of responsibility are becoming increasingly important in international criminal procedure. We contend that diminished culpability based on advances in neuroscience provides the most challenging set of choices for the international legal community. Of the variety of affirmative defenses, emerging neuroscience-based defense provide the most challenging set of choices for the international legal community. The Esad Landzo case at the ICTY brings these challenges into focus. We discuss the difficult choices the International Criminal Court will have to make to balance the rights and needs of the victims and the due process rights of the accused.

The essay studies the introduction and use of audio-visual media in contemporary Swedish courtroom praxis and how this affects social interaction and the constitution of judicial space. The background to the study is the increasing use of video technology in law courts during the last decennium, and in particular the reformed trial code regulating court proceedings introduced in Sweden in 2008. The reform is called A Modern Trial (En modernare rättegång, Proposition 2004/05:131). An important innovation is that testimonies in lower level court proceedings now are video recorded and, in case of an appeal trial, then are screened in the appellate court. The study of social interaction and the constitution of judicial space in the essay is based in part on an ethnographic study of the Stockholm appellate court (Svea hovrätt) conducted in the fall 2010; in part on a study of the preparatory works to the legal reform; and in part on research on how media technology affects social interaction and the constitution of space and place.

Trials provide social movements with a public arena that can advance social movement goals. The adversarial structure of a trial gives social movements an opportunity to articulate their grievances and to subject their opponents to cross-examination. The drama associated with trials often attracts media attention, thus creating a broad audience for the movement's message. Moreover, trials can sometimes provide opportunities for collective experiences, bringing together activists, lawyers, experts, and other actors whose combined efforts can both strengthen the movement and promote its goals.

In 2013, the National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) of single ethical review was introduced into the Australian public health sector to address the timeliness of multisite clinical trials. A clinical trial is usually designed to test the effects of an experimental therapeutic product. While all research involving humans must comply with ethical guidelines, clinical trials testing products in Australia are also subject to stringent regulatory controls making the need to meet trial milestones critically import. Commercial clinical trials offer participating research sites substantial financial and clinical advantages. Concerns that bureaucratic processes have impeded commercial investment have influenced countries, including Australia, to introduce single ethical review, where one ethics review is accepted at multiple sites participating in the same research project. Although a central tenet of the NMA is the standardization of the behaviors and procedures of research review, concerns of inconsistency remain. This raises the question of whether the NMA does lead public healthcare agencies to adopt similar research governance practices.

A questionnaire survey was undertaken to explore the current experiences (n = 149) of the NMA in Victorian public health agencies, and 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore expectations of the future of the NMA. The findings indicated that, while there was conformity to many of the process requirements of the NMA, a persistent focus on the needs of each individual healthcare agency rather than on complying with the national system weakened pressure on agencies to adopt standardization.

The NMA has the capacity to be a powerful tool in delivering quality clinical trial outcomes, maximize research resources and create dependable performance metrics if consistent policies and governance are followed.