ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2018
Examining the Social Benefits Principle in Research with Human Participants.
Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ethical Considerations in Research With People From Refugee and Asylum Seeker Backgrounds: A Systematic Review of National and International Ethics Guidelines.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Pooled it
- Community Engagement in Research: An Antidote to the Social Value Misconception.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Integrating Rapid Evidence Generation and Synthesis in the Researcher's Methods Toolkit.Acta medica Philippina · 2023Article
- Empowering local research ethics review of antibacterial mass administration research.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2022Review
- Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials for Disorders of Consciousness.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Planning for the Next Pandemic: Ethics and Innovation Today for Improved Clinical Trials Tomorrow.Statistics in biopharmaceutical research · 2022Article
- Exploring the Attitudes and Perceptions of Master of Medical Education Graduates Towards Research Publication in Saudi Arabia.Advances in medical education and practice · 2022Article
- Locating the Source(s) of the Social Value Requirement(s).The Hastings Center report · 2018Article
- Collaborative partnership and the social value of clinical research: a qualitative secondary analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- In Defense of a Social Value Requirement for Clinical Research.Bioethics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The idea that research with human participants should benefit society has become firmly entrenched in various regulations, policies, and guidelines, but there has been little in-depth analysis of this ethical principle in the bioethics literature. In this paper, I distinguish between strong and weak versions and the social benefits principle and examine six arguments for it. I argue that while it is always ethically desirable for research with human subjects to offer important benefits to society (or the public), the reasonable expectation of substantial public benefit should be a necessary condition for regarding research as ethical only when (a) it imposes more than minimal risks on non-consenting subjects; or (b) it is supported by public resources.
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.