This article raises a number of different ethical Q's that functionally overlap. 1st is the prioritization of placebo recipients for the real vaccine. 2nd is the quality of the data. If placebo recipients receive the vaccine too soon, will that compromise efficacy results?
https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/1334520238889701380
One thing that is of potential concern is how well the researchers defined the length of the placebo trial--both for themselves in terms of data quality & for participants who chose to enroll in the trial. Were participants fully informed of how long the placebo trial would last?
Additionally, it should be noted that participants should be able to get the vaccine regardless of the length of the placebo phase. This could just generally involve them dropping out of the trial. If they want to be prioritized, however, that involves a more complicated process
So, no one will be denied the vaccine. People have the right to leave a trial at any point. Prioritization is a different issue.
And to be clear, no researcher should ever tell a subject that if they leave a trial, the data will be compromised.
Also, when we think about the ethical issues, there are both abstract considerations, as well as how these considerations are made more concrete in research practice. In concrete terms, a study benefit is typically outlined at the beginning of a study, not post-hoc.
I'm not sure whether latter prioritization would be considered overly coercive during subject enrollment by review boards. Perhaps not. The post-hoc benefit does not raise the same Qs of coercion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
