Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Protecting people in research: a comparison between biomedical and traffic research

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Traffic research shares a fundamental dilemma with other areas of empirical research in which humans are potentially put at risk. Research is justified because it can improve safety in the long run. Nevertheless, people can be harmed in the research situation. Hence, we need to balance short-term risks against long-term safety improvements, much as in other areas of research with human subjects. In this paper we focus on ethical issues that arise when human beings are directly affected in the performance of research by examining how the ethical requirements in biomedical research can inform traffic research. After introducing the basic ethical requirements on biomedical research, each of the major requirements is discussed in relation to traffic research. We identify the main areas where biomedical research and traffic research differ, and where the ethical requirements from the former cannot easily be transferred to the latter. Finally, we argue that there is a need for systematic studies of the ethics of traffic research and point to some of the issues that need to be addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Other important documents in research ethics are, especially in the United States, the Belmont Report from 1979 [25] and the National Institute of Health's (NIH) Guidelines for the Conduct of Research Involving Human Subjects from 2004 [15].

  2. The prime example of such research is probably the Milgram obedience study, where people’s willingness to follow authorities was studied. See for example Cave and Holm [3].

  3. Raanan Gillon, for instance, writes that the ‘four principles’ approach “seems to cut across national, cultural, religious, political and philosophical divisions and to provide a common set of prima facie moral commitments [...]” (1995) [7].

  4. One example of the critics is Takala [24, p. 10].

  5. Furthermore, the research quality is also ethically relevant from another point of view. Researchers have a moral obligation not to deceive those who come in contact with their results, by presenting findings or conclusions as if they were reliable and valid when in fact they are obtained through methods that do not meet scientific standards. This would be unethical just like lying in general is considered unethical.

  6. Cf The Belmont Report, part C:2 [25].

  7. See for instance the Declaration of Helsinki, §19, or the Belmont Report, B:3.

  8. See for example Shamoo and Resnik [22, p. 186]; Cave and Holm [3]; Peterson [20].

  9. Elks [5] discusses this.

  10. Cf the discussion in The Belmont Report, [25] part C:1.

  11. In the case of children, they not allowed to provide an informed consent—this is instead done by their parents or legal guardians. Nonetheless it is reasonable to argue that the children should be provided with information, adapted to their age, of what will be done to them and why.

  12. The Belmont Report, [25] C:1.

  13. Alcohol interlocks (also termed ‘alcolocks’) “are devices that require the driver to take breath tests before starting the vehicle.” For further information, see the fact sheet from European Transport Safety Council (ETSC); http://www.etsc.be/documents/Fact_sheet_alcolocks.pdf.

  14. A discussion of the limitations of codes is found in Martin and Schinzinger [13, p. 78)].

References

  1. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics, (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brody, B. A. (1998). The ethics of biomedical research: An international perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cave, E., & Holm, S. (2003). Milgram and Tuskegee—Paradigm Research Projects in Bioethics. Health Care Analysis, 11(1), 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Code of Ethics and Policies and Procedures (1997). The American Sociological Association Committee on Professional Ethics.

  5. Elks, M. L. (1993). The right to participate in research studies. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 122(2), 130–136.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002). American Psychological Association, 2002.

  7. Gillon, R. (1995). Defending the ‘four principles’ approach to biomedical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 21(6), 323–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hansson, S. O. (2003). Ethical criteria of risk acceptance. Erkenntis, 59, 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hansson, S. O. (2004). Weighing risks and benefits. Topoi, 23, 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hansson, S. O. (2005). Extended anti-paternalism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 97–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hansson, S. O. (2006a). Uncertainty and the ethics of clinical trials. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27, 149–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hansson, S. O. (2006b). Informed consent out of context. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 149–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (1989). Ethics in engineering, (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Meta -Code of Ethics (1995). European Federation of Professional Psychologists Associations.

  15. National Institutes of Health, NIH (2004). Guidelines for the Conduct of Research Involving Human Subjects at the National Institutes of Health, 5th printing. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August 2004.

  16. Öberg, G. et al. (1985). Experiments with unsalted roads. Final Report. Report 282A. Linköping: VTI.

  17. Öberg, G. (1987). Saltning—Trafiksäkerhet: Beräkning av olycksrisk utifrån östgötaförsöket med osaltade vägar. Notat T 11. Linköping: VTI.

  18. Öberg, G., Gustafson, K., & Axelson, L. (1991). Effektivare halkbekämpning med mindre salt. MINSALT-projektets huvudrapport. Rapport 369. Linköping: VTI, 1991. The Swedish report is summarized in Öberg, G. et al., More effective de-icing with less salt. Final report of the MINSALT-project. Report 369SA. Linköping, VTI, 1991.

  19. Öberg, G. (2005). Research Director at the Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute. Interview on October 23rd, 2005.

  20. Peterson, B. (2001). Etik och kolhydrater: En forskningsetisk studie om Vipeholmsundersökningarna 1945–1955, VEST (2–3).

  21. Richter, E., Barach, P., Berman, T., Ben-David, G., & Weinberger, Z. (2001). Extending the boundaries of the Declaration of Helsinki: A case study of an unethical experiment in a non-medical setting. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27, 126–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2003). Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Silverman, H. J., Druml, C., Lemaire, F., & Nelson, R. (2004). The European Union Directive and the protection of incapacitated subjects in research: An ethical analysis. Intensive Care Medicine, 30, 1723–1729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Takala, T. (2001). What is wrong with global bioethics? On the limitations of the four principles approach. Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics, 10, 72–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. The Belmont Report. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, by The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research. April 18, 1979.

  26. The Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, adopted by the World Medical Association General Assembly, June 1964. Last revised version from Tokyo, 2004.

  27. Tingvall, C. (2005). Director of Traffic Safety at the Swedish Road Administration. Speech at Transportforum, Linköping, Sweden, January 12th 2005.

  28. Wenger, N. S., & Shapiro, M. F. (1997). Consent and discontent. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 157(12), 1691.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Philosophy, Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 78 B, 100 44 , Stockholm, Sweden

    Sara Svensson & Sven Ove Hansson

Authors
  1. Sara Svensson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sven Ove Hansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Svensson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Svensson, S., Hansson, S.O. Protecting people in research: a comparison between biomedical and traffic research. SCI ENG ETHICS 13, 99–115 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0001-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0001-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation