Warfighter Enhancement: Research and Technology

2021 ◽  
pp. 181-203
Author(s):  
Michael L. Gross
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Organizational Efficiency ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Pain And Suffering ◽  
Therapeutic Research ◽  
Modern Warfare ◽  
Cultural Skills

To improve warfighter performance, medical science seeks pharmacological, surgical, genetic, and neurological technologies to make soldiers smarter, faster, stronger, and more alert. The sought after soldier is a gladiator or Jedi knight. Scientific research, however, is unwarranted if superfluous, and there are grave doubts about the usefulness of super soldiers in modern warfare where warfighters need language and cultural skills rather than strength and endurance. Beneficial enhancement research, therefore, focuses on learning, information analysis, and organizational efficiency that do not require invasive, irreversible, or surgical interventions. Utilizing noninvasive technologies such as wearables or neuroplasticity training carry few risks and enable research subjects to give fully informed consent. Nevertheless, medical scientists are not conducting therapeutic research to ameliorate pain and suffering. They are building weapons of war. As a result, enhancement researchers and providers jeopardize their immunity on the battlefield and leave themselves liable to defensive killing in war.

Biobanking

2010 ◽  
pp. 216-232
Author(s):  
Robert J. Barnet
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Social Consensus ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Material Benefits ◽  
Past Experiences ◽  
Power Position

It is important to recognize that the four “p”s - power, position, prestige and profit - too frequently drive science, business, academia, and the professions. This chapter is concerned with the importance of appropriate consent, the just distribution of the material benefits of scientific research, and the possible exploitation of research subjects. Informed consent and social consensus may not adequately address the related ethical issues involved in biobanking and other related research. Past experiences internationally, especially among the marginalized, are reviewed. The chapter explores whether benefits that accrue to those involved in research, and even the larger community, can rely on the concept of social consensus. Is there sufficient attention to transparency and adequate consideration of present and future harms and benefits to research subjects, their descendants and the broader community? Are conflicts of interest, real and potential, adequately acknowledged and addressed?

The Interview as a Cultural Performance and the Value of Surrendering Control

2020 ◽  
pp. 49-60
Author(s):  
Markus Göransson
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Oral History ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Cultural Performance ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Group Settings ◽  
Oral History Interviews

This chapter looks into Markus Göransson's reports from Tajikistan. It demonstrates how the mere use of the word “interview” could scare cautious non-elite research participants in violent and/or illiberal contexts away. It recounts Göransson's field research while being equipped with literature-based knowledge on how to conduct oral history interviews and secure the informed consent of interlocutors. The chapter explains how Göransson gathered data ad hoc, in informal, private, and often group settings, requiring flexibility and creativity on his behalf and a willingness to relinquish control of the process to some extent. It points out the deep affinities between the states' disciplining techniques and scientific research method.

Fulfilling the Underlying Purpose of Informed Consent to Research

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica W. Berg ◽  
Paul S. Appelbaum ◽  
Charles W. Lidz ◽  
Lisa S. Parker
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Bodily Integrity ◽  
Traditional Concept ◽  
Treatment Situation ◽  
Consent To Treatment ◽  
History Of ◽  
Participation In Research ◽  
Treatment Settings

To a great extent the underlying purposes of informed consent in research settings resemble those in the treatment situation. Informed consent promotes individuals’ autonomy by allowing subjects to make meaningful decisions about participation in research projects. Informed consent is also a means of reducing inequalities of knowledge and power in the researcher-subject relationship and thus increases the cooperation and compliance of subjects. Increased knowledge also enhances patients’ abilities to make decisions that will protect them from unwanted and undesirable intrusions on bodily integrity, perhaps of even greater importance here than in treatment settings, because of the sorry history of abuses inflicted on research subjects. As great as the similarities are between consent to treatment and consent to research, the differences are equally great. In treatment settings, as already noted, clinicians and patients are presumed to share the same goal: promoting patients’ health. They may disagree over the means, but a general coincidence of interests is ordinarily the rule. Charles Fried calls this confluence of interests the principle of personal care. “The traditional concept of the physician’s relation to his patient is one of unqualified fidelity to that patient’s health. He may certainly not do anything that would impair the patient’s health and he must do everything in his ability to further it”. The essence of this principle is that physicians will not allow any other considerations to impinge on their decisions as to what measures are in their patients’ best interests. Since the goal of scientific investigation is the production of generalizable knowledge, not primarily the promotion of individual health, the interests of subjects and researchers are not identical. Clinician-researchers who are providing treatment to subjects in their research studies may feel this clash of interests most acutely as steps taken to protect the generalizability of the data may conflict with the maximization of benefit to individual subjects (2). The need to take this conflict into account in the decisionmaking process is largely responsible for the differences between consent to research and consent to treatment.

scholarly journals The preferences of potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research regarding consent procedures and information delivery

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 29-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Sundby ◽  
Merete Watt Boolsen ◽  
Kristoffer Sølvsten Burgdorf ◽  
Henrik Ullum ◽  
Thomas Folkmann Hansen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Incidental Findings ◽  
Genetic Research ◽  
Genomic Research ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Telephone Consultation ◽  
Active Involvement ◽  
Consent Procedure ◽  
To Receive

AbstractBackground:Genomic sequencing plays an increasing role in genetic research, also in psychiatry. This raises challenges concerning the validity and type of the informed consent and the return of incidental findings. However, no solution currently exists on the best way to obtain the informed consent and deliver findings to research subjects.Aims:This study aims to explore the attitudes among potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research toward the consenting procedure and the delivery of incidental findings.Methods:We developed a cross-sectional web-based survey among five groups of stakeholders. A total of 2637 stakeholders responded: 241 persons with a mental disorder, 671 relatives, 1623 blood donors, 74 psychiatrists, and 28 clinical geneticists.Results:The stakeholders wanted active involvement as 92.7% preferred a specific consent and 85.1% wanted to receive information through a dynamic consent procedure. The majority of stakeholders preferred to receive genomic information related to serious or life-threatening health conditions through direct contact (69.5%) with a health professional, i.e. face-to-face consultation or telephone consultation (82.4%). Persons with mental disorders and relatives did not differ in their attitudes from the other stakeholder groups.Conclusion:The findings illustrate that the stakeholders want to be more actively involved and consider consent as a reciprocal transaction between the involved subjects and the researchers in the project. The results highlight the importance of collaboration between researchers and clinical geneticists as the latter are trained, through their education and clinical experience, to return and explain genomic data to patients, relatives, and research subjects.

The Ethical Challenges of Animal Research

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
HOPE R. FERDOWSIAN ◽  
JOHN P. GLUCK
Keyword(s):  
England Journal ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
New England ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Ethical Justification ◽  
Influential Paper ◽  
Moral Problems

Abstract:In 1966, Henry K. Beecher published an article entitled “Ethics and Clinical Research” in the New England Journal of Medicine, which cited examples of ethically problematic human research. His influential paper drew attention to common moral problems such as inadequate attention to informed consent, risks, and efforts to provide ethical justification. Beecher’s paper provoked significant advancements in human research policies and practices. In this paper, we use an approach modeled after Beecher’s 1966 paper to show that moral problems with animal research are similar to the problems Beecher described for human research. We describe cases that illustrate ethical deficiencies in the conduct of animal research, including inattention to the issue of consent or assent, incomplete surveys of the harms caused by specific protocols, inequitable burdens on research subjects in the absence of benefits to them, and insufficient efforts to provide ethical justification. We provide a set of recommendations to begin to address these deficits.

FUNDING OF MEDICAL SCIENCE IN RUSSIA WITHIN AS PART OF STATE PROGRAMS

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 39-44
Author(s):  
�������� ◽  
Elena Nefedova ◽  
������ ◽  
Vladimir Perkhov ◽  
���������� ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Science ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Federal Budget ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Academic Science ◽  
Coherent System ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Russian Academy Of Sciences ◽  
State Programs ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

The aim of the research was to reveal main problems associated with the use of state programs funding mechanisms for basic research in health (medical) sciences in Russia, as main instruments of state policy. The source of information were �State Academies of Sciences Program of basic investigations for the period of 2013�2020 years� and other normative and legal acts in the sphere of planning and public financing of science and research. A study completed by using documentary, analytical methods, as well as methods of descriptive statistics and expert estimates. In analyzing financing from the federal budget for scientific research for civilian use within government programs calculations section, subsection of the budget classification, reflecting expenditure on scientific research (0110, 0112, 0208, 0313, 0403, 0411, 0504, 0604, 0708, 0803, 0908, 1005, 1104, 1203). Feature of the current situation is in an indeterminate state basic science after the liquidation of the Russian Academy of Sciences as a structure that generates through subordinate organizations the bulk of new knowledge and innovation in the country. Reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences led to the destruction of a coherent system of relations in science, to the Federal agency of scientific organizations for management of resources, Ministry of Education and Science and Russian academy of Sciences. Strict rationality and bureaucracy was extremely negatively perceived in academic science. The analysis of the subject structure of the medical unit actualized in 2015 of the Program of basic research of the state academies of sciences for the period of 2013�2020 showed that the distribution of the federal budget for basic research are not consistent with the priorities in the health sector, it does not account for changes in departmental affiliation Organizations of Medical Sciences. The authors prove the necessity of functional and managerial integration of academic medical institutions in the unified system of scientific research, creation and implementation of medical innovations into practical health care.

Loss of Possession: Concussions, Informed Consent, and Autonomy

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 334-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Robeson ◽  
Nancy M. P. King
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Autonomous Decision ◽  
Duty To Inform ◽  
Fundamental Shift ◽  
Original Concept

The principle of informed consent is so firmly established in bioethics and biomedicine that the term was soon bowdlerized in common practice, such that engaging in the informed decision-making process with patients or research subjects is now often called “consenting” them. This evolution, from the original concept to the rather questionable coinage that makes consent a verb, reveals not only a loss of rhetorical precision but also a fundamental shift in the potential meaning, value, and implementation of the informed consent process. Too often, the sharing of information has been replaced by the mere acquisition of agreement with the authority ostensibly offering a choice.Scholars of informed consent agree that its salience and its legitimacy derive from a fiduciary duty to inform, in order to respect, protect, and promote autonomous decision making by those to whom the duty is owed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document