Viewing Research Participation As a Moral Obligation: In Whose Interests‪?‬

A moral paradigm shift has been proposed for participation in health-related research. It's not just a praiseworthy option, some say; it's a social obligation. Recasting research participation in this way would have global ramifications, however. Who ultimately stands to gain the most from it, and who has the most to lose? Over the past few years, a growing number of people have called for reconceptualizing participation in health research as a moral obligation. John Harris argues that seriously debilitating diseases give rise to important needs, and since medical research is necessary to relieve those needs in many circumstances, people are morally obligated to act as research subjects. (1) Rosamond Rhodes claims that research participation is a moral obligation for reasons of justice, beneficence, and self-development: because we all benefit significantly from modern medicine, we are all required to do our part in advancing the state of medical knowledge. (2) Individuals who reap the benefits of medical knowledge without contributing through research participation are not only acting unfairly toward others, but acting against their own self-interest. G. Owen Schaefer and colleagues argue that "because the enterprise of biomedical research produces the important benefit of medical knowledge that is an advantage to all, every individual has an obligation to support that system of knowledge generation by participating in biomedical research." (3) For this reason, they write, individuals normally ought to participate in clinical trials when presented with the option.