ArticleBioethics2026
When Is Social Value Proportionate to Research Risks?
Article in Bioethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ethical human subjects research must have an acceptable risk-benefit ratio, which requires that the net risks participants face be proportionate to the research's social value. Yet existing scholarship does not explain what makes risks proportionate to social value. Here, I distinguish internal and external senses of proportionality and argue that it is internal proportionality that is the proper object of IRB/REC review. I propose understanding internal proportionality in terms of a literal ratio of expected health effects; I also argue against the alternative of attempting to assess proportionality through intuitive comparisons. I illustrate the potential implications of this account through a discussion of the proposal to engage in controlled human infection studies with the novel coronavirus. This case highlights that trials with enormous numbers of potential beneficiaries can be internally proportional even when they are very unlikely to succeed.
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.