PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Ethics standards reference the need for special consideration of vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, incarcerated individuals, and minors. The concept of vulnerability is poorly conceptualized in the medical sciences where it originated, and its application to the social sciences is even more challenging. Social science researchers may unwittingly fail to appreciate preexisting vulnerabilities and indeed may be responsible for inducing new research-related vulnerability. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive coding of country-level vulnerability designations. Specifically, we coded all 355 official documents governing social/behavioral human subjects research for the 107 countries with such regulations and identified 68 distinct vulnerability categories. The data reveal substantial regional variation, overemphasis of categories derived from medical sciences, neglect of critical categories such as displacement, and likely heterogeneity within and across groups. The article provides a conceptual framework that shifts the problem away from static, enumerated categories toward emphasis on research-induced vulnerability. Based on our conceptualization and coding, we present a framework for assessing vulnerability and implementing appropriate protections.
摘要：
道德标准提到需要特别考虑弱势群体，比如孕妇,被监禁的人,和未成年人。脆弱性的概念在其起源的医学科学中概念化得很差，它在社会科学中的应用更具挑战性。社会科学研究人员可能无意中无法理解先前存在的漏洞，实际上可能是导致新的与研究相关的漏洞的原因。在本文中,我们介绍了第一个国家级漏洞指定的综合编码。具体来说,我们为107个国家/地区的社会/行为人类受试者研究的所有355份官方文件编码了此类法规，并确定了68个不同的脆弱性类别。数据揭示了巨大的区域差异，过分强调来自医学科学的类别，忽视流离失所等关键类别，以及组内和组间可能的异质性。本文提供了一个概念框架，将问题从静态转移到静态，列举了强调研究引发的脆弱性的类别。基于我们的概念化和编码，我们提出了一个评估脆弱性和实施适当保护的框架。
