Pharmaceuticalisation and ethical review in South Asia: Issues of scope and authority for practitioners and policy makers

被引:13
作者
Simpson, Bob [1 ]
Khatri, Rekha [2 ,3 ]
Ravindran, Deapica [3 ,4 ]
Udalagama, Tharindi [3 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Durham, Dept Anthropol, Durham DH1 3LE, England
[2] Social Sci Baha, Kathmandu, Nepal
[3] Biomed Hlth Experimentat South Asia Project, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Anusandhan Trust, Ctr Studies Eth & Rights, Bombay, Maharashtra, India
[5] Univ Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka
基金
英国经济与社会研究理事会;
关键词
Ethical review; South Asia; ICH-GCP; Clinical trials; Capacity-building;
D O I
10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.016
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Ethical review by expert committee continues to be the first line of defence when it comes to protecting human subjects recruited into clinical trials. Drawing on a large scale study of biomedical experimentation across South Asia, and specifically on interviews with 24 ethical review committee [ERC] members across India, Sri Lanka and Nepal, this article identifies some of the tensions that emerge for ERC members as the capacity to conduct credible ethical review of clinical trials is developed across the region. The article draws attention to fundamental issues of scope and authority in the operation of ethical review. On the one hand, ERC members experience a powerful pull towards harmonisation and a strong alignment with international standards deemed necessary for the global pharmaceutical assemblage to consolidate and extend. On the other hand, they must deal with what is in effect the double jeopardy of ethical review in developing world contexts. ERC members must undertake review but are frequently made aware of their responsibility to protect interests that go beyond the 'human subject' and into the realms of development and national interest [for example, in relation to literacy and informed consent]. These dilemmas are indicative of broader questions about where ethical review sits in institutional terms and how it might develop to best ensure improved human subject protection given growth of industry-led research. Crown Copyright (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:247 / 254
页数:8
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   Progress, innovation and regulatory science in drug development: The politics of international standard-setting [J].
Abraham, J ;
Reed, T .
SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, 2002, 32 (03) :337-369
[2]  
Abraham J., 2007, BIOSOCIETIES, V2, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S1745855207005042
[3]   Evolving sociological analyses of 'pharmaceuticalisation': a response to Williams, Martin and Gabe [J].
Abraham, John .
SOCIOLOGY OF HEALTH & ILLNESS, 2011, 33 (05) :726-728
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2009, EXPT TRAVEL CLIN TRI
[5]  
Boer Annelies Den, 2013, Indian J Med Ethics, V10, P106
[6]  
Bosk C.L., 2007, POLAR-POLIT LEG ANTH, V30, P192, DOI [10.1525/pol.2007.30.2.192, DOI 10.1525/POL.2007.30.2.192]
[7]  
Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, 2001, GOOD CLIN PRACT CLIN
[8]  
Dissanayake V. H. W., 2006, Ceylon Medical Journal, V51, P110
[9]  
Douglas-Jones R., 2013, THESIS U DURHAM
[10]   What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research [J].
Emanuel, EJ ;
Wendler, D ;
Killen, J ;
Grady, C .
JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2004, 189 (05) :930-937