What makes risky early clinical trials worth doing?
The authors argue that 'social value' should refer only to the improvement a tested intervention is expected to bring to patients, and that trials of interventions lacking such value should not expose people to risk at all.
Source
The social value of clinical research
Study at a glance
- Design
- Qualitative / archival — Philosophical conceptual analysis of how 'social value' is used in research-ethics literature and guidelines, followed by a normative proposal.
- N
- No participants or data; an argument paper.
- Population
- Clinical research involving human participants, especially first-in-human (phase I) trials
- Outcome
- Thesis that social value should mean the anticipated improvement an intervention brings to patients' wellbeing and should be a prerequisite for involving humans in research
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
What they did
The authors survey how research-ethics writers and guidelines use 'social value', 'clinical value', 'progressive value' and similar terms, and show that these attach value to different things (knowledge, trials, information). They distinguish values of society from value for society, then propose a narrower concept of anticipated social value and separate it from a trial's translational prospect and its scientific validity. They illustrate with examples such as an antimicrobial peptide trial with a poorly chosen comparator.
What they found
They argue that existing taxonomies create an inconsistency: if phase I trials have less value than phase III trials, it is hard to explain why we accept higher risks in phase I. Placing value on the intervention, not the trial, removes that inconsistency. They propose a 'risk-value' rather than 'risk-benefit' assessment for first-in-human trials, and a two-step ethics review: first reject proposals whose intervention has no anticipated social value, then weigh value, translational prospect and validity against risks. They add that the public and patients, not only scientists, should help judge what counts as enough value.
The limits
What it doesn't show
The authors admit that 'value' remains ambiguous and they do not solve the underlying philosophical question of what makes something valuable. They offer no standard for how much anticipated value is enough, leaving that to public deliberation, and they concede their proposal does not remove the problem of justifying high risks in phase I when participants gain no direct benefit. The practicality of extra review steps such as researcher-patient meetings is argued for but not tested.
Key terms
- Social value
- The worth research or its products have for society; the authors narrow it to the anticipated improvement an intervention brings to wellbeing.
- First-in-human (phase I) trial
- The earliest human testing of an intervention, aimed at safety, usually with no expected direct benefit to participants.
- Translational prospect
- How likely a particular trial is to move the intervention closer to clinical use.
- Validity
- Whether a trial's design can actually answer its research question.
- Risk-value assessment
- Weighing participant risks against the anticipated social value of the intervention, used when no direct benefit is expected.
Flashcards
0 of 10 answers reviewed
Research intelligence for this paper
See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.
Quiz yourself
On the authors' proposal, anticipated social value belongs to:
Common questions
Why does it matter what 'social value' means?
Because in first-in-human trials there is usually no benefit to participants, so social value is the only thing that can justify the risks they take; an unclear concept makes that justification shaky.
Why not say phase III trials have more value than phase I trials?
If value belongs to trials, phase III seems more valuable, yet we tolerate more risk in phase I; putting value on the intervention itself avoids this inconsistency.
Who should decide whether an intervention has enough social value?
The authors say not only scientists and ethics committees, but also patients and the public, through funders and politics.
More on Research ethics