Abstract
Rosamond Rhodes and John Harris have both recently argued that we all have a general moral duty to participate in medical research. However, neither Rhodes' nor Harris' arguments in support of this obligation stand up to scrutiny, and severe and convincing criticism has been levelled against their case. Still, to refute their arguments is not to refute the conclusion. There seems to be some truth in the view that when people are asked to take part in medical research, their choice is not completely morally neutral. In this article, we argue that the proper question to ask is when, rather than if, a certain moral duty to volunteer for medical research can be appealed to. To answer this question, we need a denser description of relevant research projects and their context rather than just describing medical research in general. Drawing on our study of participants in the Norwegian HUNT biobank, we use the normative implications of the Norwegian concept «dugnad» as an analogy to discuss the requirement of providing neutral information to potential biobank participants in order to promote their free and informed decision as to whether or not to take part. We suggest that normative recruitment is not just a question of principles and ethics. It is also a question of research design and the creation of the common good in the community where the research takes place.
Highlights
Rosamond Rhodes and John Harris have both recently argued that we all have a general moral duty to participate in medical research
The authors of this article learned this from the entry for dugnad in the Norwegian version of Wikipedia – an international project6 which might be termed «the largest dugnad ever», not in the sense of a system of reciprocity, but in the sense of making people contribute to the common good motivated by personal pride and solidarity without any economic gain
The main elements in HUNT that constitute a dugnad can be identified. Even though it is different from a traditional dugnad in some respects, it seems fair to say that HUNT is a dugnad, or at least it is a project in the dugnad spirit
Summary
Rosamond Rhodes and John Harris have both recently argued that we all have a general moral duty to participate in medical research. We argue that the proper question to ask is when, rather than if, a certain moral duty to volunteer for medical research can be appealed to. By making autonomy and participation the norm, the default position for Rhodes is that everybody can and will contribute to the common good resulting from medical research. Harris likewise discusses in the article ‘Scientific research is a moral duty’ the question of a putative duty to participate in research as a moral question, and not a juridical or a political one (Harris 2005) In this article he emphasises two principles, both of which he thinks commit us to a moral obligation to participate in medical research. This will obviously include minimally invasive and minimally risky procedures such as participation in biobanks, provided safeguards against wrongful use are in place» (Harris 2005: 247)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
