Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Feb 7;15(1):8.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0164-6.

The concept of 'vulnerability' in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines

Affiliations

The concept of 'vulnerability' in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines

Dearbhail Bracken-Roche et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: The concept of vulnerability has held a central place in research ethics guidance since its introduction in the United States Belmont Report in 1979. It signals mindfulness for researchers and research ethics boards to the possibility that some participants may be at higher risk of harm or wrong. Despite its important intended purpose and widespread use, there is considerable disagreement in the scholarly literature about the meaning and delineation of vulnerability, stemming from a perceived lack of guidance within research ethics standards. The aim of this study was to assess the concept of vulnerability as it is employed in major national and international research ethics policies and guidelines.

Methods: We conducted an in-depth analysis of 11 (five national and six international) research ethics policies and guidelines, exploring their discussions of the definition, application, normative justification and implications of vulnerability.

Results: Few policies and guidelines explicitly defined vulnerability, instead relying on implicit assumptions and the delineation of vulnerable groups and sources of vulnerability. On the whole, we found considerable richness in the content on vulnerability across policies, but note that this relies heavily on the structure imposed on the data through our analysis.

Conclusions: Our results underscore a need for policymakers to revisit the guidance on vulnerability in research ethics, and we propose that a process of stakeholder engagement would well-support this effort.

Keywords: Ethics policy; Research ethics; Research oversight; Research policy; Vulnerability; Vulnerable populations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Coleman CH. Vulnerability as a regulatory category in human subject research. J Law Med Ethics. 2009;37:12–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00346.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. ten Have H. Respect for human vulnerability: the emergence of a new principle in bioethics. J Bioeth Inq. 2015;12:395–408. doi: 10.1007/s11673-015-9641-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Eriksson S, Höglund AT, Helgesson G. Do ethical guidelines give guidance? A critical examination of eight ethics regulations. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2008;17:15–29. - PubMed
    1. Solomon SR. Protecting and respecting the vulnerable: existing regulations or further protections? Theor Med Bioeth. 2013;34:17–28. doi: 10.1007/s11017-013-9242-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hurst SA. Vulnerability in research and health care; describing the elephant in the room? Bioethics. 2008;22:191–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00631.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources