The Social Risks of Science

Abstract

Many instances of scientific research impose risks, not just on participants and scientists but also on third parties. This class of social risks unifies a range of problems previously treated as distinct phenomena, including so‐called bystander risks, biosafety concerns arising from gain‐of‐function research, the misuse of the results of dual‐use research, and the harm caused by inductive risks. The standard approach to these problems has been to extend two familiar principles from human subjects research regulations—a favorable risk‐benefit ratio and informed consent. We argue, however, that these moral principles will be difficult to satisfy in the context of widely distributed social risks about which affected parties may reasonably disagree. We propose that framing these risks as political rather than moral problems may offer another way. By borrowing lessons from political philosophy, we propose a framework that unifies our discussion of social risks and the possible solutions to them.

The Essential Need for Trust When Transmission Risk Cannot Be Eliminated in HIV‐Remission Trials

“…They should also be managed by civil society or governmental bodies with the political legitimacy to deliberate and make decisions about risks that affect the wider society. 53 In the case of HIV-remission research, where few third parties are potentially exposed to risk (relative to "gain-of-function" research, for example), it is not clear what such deliberative bodies should look like. Shah and colleagues envision ad hoc committees with diverse expertise and potential community input.…”

Participant voice first: the Busara research agenda on ethical research in the Global South

“…The scope of these debates about how to conduct research ethically go well beyond those usually encompassed by the term 'research ethics' (Herington & Tanona, 2020). We need to move beyond a narrow focus only on the welfare of individual participants (Camfield & Palmer-Jones, 2015), though of course that remains crucial too, and examine our role in a wider ecosystem of international development knowledge, especially when our research findings are likely to have an impact on policy and programs Scott, 2016).…”

Health Research and Social Justice Philosophy

“…The timing seems ideal for Jonathan Herington and Scott Tanona to present, as they do in this issue of the Hastings Center Report, an argument about the conceptual misunderstanding and inappropriate ethical addressal of a cluster of issues related to scientific research, namely, how scientific research affects "third parties" beyond the researchers and research participants. 1 The timing looks good because, as of the writing of this commentary at the end of 2020, the entire world has been daily fixated for well over seven months on research trials occurring worldwide for Covid-19 vaccines. While there have been some discussions about the ethics of how the vaccine research is or should be done, the overwhelming interest has been in how the research outcomes will impact societies and the world order, or third parties.…”

“…Without the right timing, even compelling or illuminating arguments can silently disappear among millions of PDF files to be read later, into web‐page archives, onto bookshelves, and so forth. The timing seems ideal for Jonathan Herington and Scott Tanona to present, as they do in this issue of the Hastings Center Report , an argument about the conceptual misunderstanding and inappropriate ethical addressal of a cluster of issues related to scientific research, namely, how scientific research affects “third parties” beyond the researchers and research participants 1 . The timing looks good because, as of the writing of this commentary at the end of 2020, the entire world has been daily fixated for well over seven months on research trials occurring worldwide for Covid‐19 vaccines.…”

“…Without one of those things, Rawls argues, human beings would not cooperate. 2 Features of social risks that Herington and Tanona say "roughly parallel" circumstances of justice-such as the fact that benefits and risks of research are often unequally distributed 3 -are not necessary preconditions for mutual cooperation; rather, they are some of the issues of social risks of research that have to be deliberated upon after there is an agreement on the basic principles of social justice. It would be a far stretch to think that individuals would come together to cooperate, and identify the rules of social cooperation, because of the different social risks of research.…”