Offshoring Clinical Trials: The Mutable Ethics, Weak Protections and Vulnerable Subjects of EU Law

In this paper I engage with science and technology studies work on pharmaceuticalisation to explore how European Union (EU) law helps to produce and support the preference for pharmaceutical responses in public health governance, while authorising the production of vulnerable subjects through the growing off-shoring of clinical trials. Drawing on the analysis of legal and policy documents, I demonstrate how EU law allows and legitimates the use of data procured from vulnerable subjects abroad for market authorisation and corporate profitability at home. This is possible because the EU has (de)selected international ethical frameworks in order to support the continued and growing use of clinical trials data from abroad. This has helped to stimulate the revision of international ethical frameworks in light of market needs, inscribing EU public health law within specific politics (that often remained obscured by the joint workings of legal and technological discourses). I suggest that law operates as part of a broader ‘technology’ – encompassing ethics and human rights discourses – that functions to optimise life through resort to market reasoning. Law is thereby reoriented, instrumentalised and deployed as part of a broader project aimed at (re)defining and limiting the boundaries of the EU's responsibility for public health, including the broader social production of public health problems and the unequal global order that the EU represents and helps to depoliticise and perpetuate. Overall, this limits the EU's responsibility and accountability for these failures, as well as another: the weak and mutable protections and insecure legacies for vulnerable trial subjects abroad.

Attitudes and Ethics: Evaluating Knowledge and Regulatory Constructs in Planning Enforcement Practice

The departure point for the paper is the need to scrutinise previously unconsidered dimensions which are fundamental to understanding the dynamics of the planning enforcement system. Drawing upon emerging themes in regulation theory the paper fuses these with knowledge constructs. The rationale is that regulatory regimes must be informed by knowledge imparted from a range of sources and the resultant quality of decision making is inextricably linked to the robustness and completeness of the evidence base collated.
The theoretical analysis, coupled with proposed radical legislative changes, provides a lens for an empirical investigation which scrutinises tactics, strategies, operational mechanisms, attitudinal dimensions and ethics with a view to identifying key factors impacting upon enforcement efficacy. Prizes and pitfalls are identified in the course of the analysis and evaluation, with evidence-based remedies suggested where appropriate. The paper concludes by reflecting on the importance of theoretical synergy, epistemological advancement, taking cognisance of ethical and attitudinal challenges facing the planning profession; and, stresses the importance of identifying and bringing to book those who flagrantly breach the Code of Professional Conduct.

Clinical Trials Abroad: The Marketable Ethics, Weak Protections and Vulnerable Subjects of EU Law

This chapter explores how the EU is a largely overlooked exporter of normative power through its facilitation and use of clinical trials data produced abroad for the marketing of safe pharmaceuticals at home; a move that helps to foster the growing resort to pharmaceuticals as a fix for public health problems. This is made possible by the EU’s (de)selection of international ethical frameworks in preference to the international technical standards it co-authors with other global regulators. Clinical trials abroad underscore how ethics are contingent and revisable in light of market needs, producing weak protections for the vulnerable subjects of EU law. I argue that these components and effects of the regime are ultimately about that which undergirds, shapes and directs regulatory design. That is, I point to the use, infiltration, perpetuation and extension of market-oriented ideas, values and rationalities into formally non-market domains like biomedical knowledge production and public health. I explain how these are central to efforts at producing and legitimating the EU, its related imagined socio-political order based on a more innovative, profitable and competitive pharmaceutical sector in order to foster economic growth, jobs and prosperity, and with them the project of European integration. ‘Bioethics as risk’ is highlighted as a way to reshape and redirect the regulatory regime in ways that are more consistent with the spirit and letter of the ethical standards (and through them the human rights) the EU claims to uphold.

Doing Focus Groups and Interviews with Recent Migrants to Northern Ireland: A Dynamic Interplay of Ethics, Language and Access

This case describes a qualitative social science research project that was conducted in 2009 and that examined the experiences of recent migrants to Northern Ireland. While background to the research and key findings are presented, the topic forms a backdrop to the case. The following aspects of the study are presented: the theoretical context; formulating the research question, design and methodology; key methodological issues; data collection and analysis; project dissemination; and research funding and reporting. The case pays particular attention to the needs and impact of different groups including the researcher, the funding body, the researcher’s employer and the researched. The significance of access, language and ethics to this study are examined. Finally, the way in which the research unfolded in an often-unpredictable way throughout the implementation process is highlighted in the narrative.

An Inclusive Design Dialogue on Ethics and Aesthetics

One of the many definitions of inclusive design is that it is a user-led approach to design. To date its focus has been on ‘critical’ users, in particular disabled people. As such, there is pressure to design environments that meet the often urgent and complex demands of these users. Designers, uncertain of their knowledge, rely heavily on user input and guidance, often resulting in designs that are ‘solution’ driven (rather than solution seeking) and short term; users focus on what they need, not what they might need. This paper argues that design needs to reclaim an equal presence within inclusive design. It proposes that the ‘weakness’ of design lies in the uneasy and at times conflicting relationship between ethics and aesthetics. The paper itself is constructed around a dialogue between two academics, one concerned with critical user needs, the other with aesthetics, but both directed towards the support of design quality

Research Ethics in Divided and Violent Societies: Seizing the Ethical Opportunity

This chapter explores how to conduct social research in divided and violent societies by developing the concept of the ‘ethical opportunity’. The ‘ethical opportunity’ is situated in a brief discussion of ‘action’ and feminist approaches to research. It argues that seizing the ethical opportunity requires researchers to: plan for their personal safety, plan for participants’ personal safety and plan how they will communicate and disseminate their results. It draws on the author’s personal experience researching in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Northern Ireland, concluding that it is in the communication and dissemination phase that researchers’ hopes for ‘making a difference’ may be realised or dashed. It cautions would-be researchers to manage their own – and research participants’ – expectations about what social research can achieve. Its effects may not often be as transforming and liberating as idealistic researchers hope for, but that should not dissuade them from striving towards those ends.

Ethics, power and space: International hospitality beyond Derrida

This article argues for the importance of hospitality in discussions of international ethics, suggesting that, while Jacques Derrida’s thought on the concept ought to be central, we also need to go beyond it. In particular, Derrida’s focus on the threshold moment of sovereign decision has the effect of reinforcing International Relations’ focus on the state as the only ethical actor and space. In contrast, this article suggests that we think of hospitality as a spatial relation with affective dimensions and a practice that continues once the guest crosses the threshold of the home. Conceived as such, hospitality reveals a constitutive relation between ethics, power and space, which directs us to the way hospitality produces international spaces and manages them through various tactics seeking to contain the resistant guest. This argument is illustrated through an examination of perhaps the most urgent of contemporary international ethical spaces: the refugee camp.

The Dark Side of Nudging: The Ethics, Political Economy, and Law of Libertarian Paternalism

Libertarian paternalism, as advanced by Cass Sunstein, is seriously flawed, but not primarily for the reasons that most commentators suggest. Libertarian paternalism and its attendant regulatory implications are too libertarian, not too paternalistic, and as a result are in considerable tension with ‘thick’ conceptions of human dignity. We make four arguments. The first is that there is no justification for a presumption in favor of nudging as a default regulatory strategy, as Sunstein asserts. It is ordinarily less effective than mandates; such mandates rarely offend personal autonomy; and the central reliance on cognitive failures in the nudging program is more likely to offend human dignity than the mandates it seeks to replace. Secondly, we argue that nudging as a regulatory strategy fits both overtly and covertly, often insidiously, into a more general libertarian program of political economy. Thirdly, while we are on the whole more concerned to reject the libertarian than the paternalistic elements of this philosophy, Sunstein’s work, both in Why Nudge?, and earlier, fails to appreciate how nudging may be manipulative if not designed with more care than he acknowledges. Lastly, because of these characteristics, nudging might even be subject to legal challenges that would give us the worst of all possible regulatory worlds: a weak regulatory intervention that is liable to be challenged in the courts by well-resourced interest groups. In such a scenario, and contrary to the ‘common sense’ ethos contended for in Why Nudge?, nudges might not even clear the excessively low bar of doing something rather than nothing. Those seeking to pursue progressive politics, under law, should reject nudging in favor of regulation that is more congruent with principles of legality, more transparent, more effective, more democratic, and allows us more fully to act as moral agents. Such a system may have a place for (some) nudging, but not one that departs significantly from how labeling, warnings and the like already function, and nothing that compares with Sunstein’s apparent ambitions for his new movement.