ArticleJAMA2009
The obligation to participate in biomedical research.
Article in JAMA, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review: bioethical implications for COVID-19 research in low prevalence countries, a distinctly different set of problems.BMC medical ethics · 2021Pooled it
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of Behavioral Nudges to Improve Enrollment in Critical Care Trials.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2020Trial
- What a mesh: a call for better science and regulatory oversight.The British journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Genetic research and the collective good: participants as leaders to reconcile individual and public interests.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Lessons for a learning health system: Effectively communicating to patients about research with their health information and biospecimens.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Ethical issues in implementation science: perspectives from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop.Implementation science : IS · 2024Article
- Balancing ethical norms and duties for the introduction of new medicines through conditional marketing authorization: a research agenda.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Do Clinicians Have a Duty to Participate in Pragmatic Clinical Trials?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Data-driven research and healthcare: public trust, data governance and the NHS.BMC medical ethics · 2023Review
- Better recognition for research participants: what society should learn from covid-19.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Is there a civic duty to support medical AI development by sharing electronic health records?BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Article
- From 'Consent or Anonymise' to 'Share and Protect': Facilitating Access to Surplus Tissue for Research Whilst Safeguarding Donor Interests.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2021Article
- Teasing out Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: An Ethical Critique of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Medicine.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021Article
- Ethical considerations regarding heart and lung transplantation and mechanical circulatory support during the COVID-19 pandemic: an ISHLT COVID-19 Task Force statement.The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2020Article
- Article
- A pilot randomized trial of five financial incentive strategies to increase study enrollment and retention rates.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019Article
- Willingness to Participate in Health Information Networks with Diverse Data Use: Evaluating Public Perspectives.EGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2019Article
- Participatory Disease Surveillance Systems: Ethical Framework.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Encouraging Participation And Transparency In Biobank Research.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The current prevailing view is that participation in biomedical research is above and beyond the call of duty. While some commentators have offered reasons against this, we propose a novel public goods argument for an obligation to participate in biomedical research. Biomedical knowledge is a public good, available to any individual even if that individual does not contribute to it. Participation in research is a critical way to support an important public good. Consequently, all have a duty to participate. The current social norm is that individuals participate only if they have a good reason to do so. The public goods argument implies that individuals should participate unless they have a good reason not to. Such a shift would be of great aid to the progress of biomedical research, eventually making society significantly healthier and longer lived.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.