Double standard in clinical research

Abstract

In the development of clinical research, the social conditions of the societies involved must be taken into account, such as vulnerability and social vulnerability. The contexts of conflicts of interest, whether economic or academic, must also be considered. Another highlight is related to the so-called moral imperialism, a condition in which societies impose their moral standards on others, not considering cultural differences, geographical conditions and social development. Thus, the “double ethical standard” in research imposes a form of imperialism of principles, values, moral relativism and na exclusively economic vision above all. The principles of ethics in biomedical research promulgated by international consensus statements are not sufficient to protect the most vulnerable societies, especially the poorest countries. The ethical principles that govern clinical research need to be translated into procedures and practices that take into account the different cultural aspects and socioeconomic resources of societies. Research participants cannot just bear the risks and not reap the benefits. There are arguments that propose the double standard as a violation of human rights, especially for not taking into account the principles of the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights of UNESCO, approved by consensus by the countries in 2005. The existence of a “strong” system ethical evaluation of research projects, with social participation, especially in local ethics committees in the most vulnerable societies, is a minimum condition for the protection of people and societies.