'Transport to Where?': Reflections on the problem of value and time à propos an awkward practice in medical research.
'Transport to Where?': Reflections on the problem of value and time à propos an awkward practice in medical research.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/17530350.2011.535335
复制
发表时间：
2011-02
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Geissler PW
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Geissler PW
基于肯尼亚民族志，本文考察了生物伦理学对临床试验中价值转移的厌恶与研究参与者和研究者对这些价值转移的期望之间的差距。本文重点讨论所谓的“交通费报销”（TR）：向参与者支付的金钱，仅作为交通费的退款，但对接受者来说具有相当大的价值。在这种情况下，兴趣不在于监管规范和贫困的研究对象的生活之间的差距并不令人惊讶，但在生物伦理话语和生存的物质之间的这种差异是沉默的方式。尽管人们普遍意识到TR确实是关于研究的物质价值、价值计算和回报预期的，但它并没有被公开讨论--除非是讽刺地、开玩笑地或私下里。这种对“补偿”的双重盲目引起了伦理学家和人类学家的讨论，其中一些人提出，产生科学价值的工作应该被承认为劳动，参与者也应该得到相应的报酬。在这里，本文认为，这种重新视野的审判参与工作，而不是作为一个礼物，为公众利益，风险废除的可能性，“公众”，这不仅是一个前提条件的公共医学科学，但它的潜在产品。所谓激进的解决方案是撕掉错误认识的面纱，即“自由”赠予意识形态置于自由劳动的现实之上，尽管分析起来似乎是合理的，但它未能认识到临床试验交易中的乌托邦式开口，这些开口指向超越现在的社会联合的更大形式，以及科学可能性和人类生活的未来联盟。
Based upon Kenyan ethnography, this article examines the gap between the bioethics aversion to value transfers in clinical trials, and research participants’ and researchers’ expectations of these. This article focuses upon so-called ‘transport reimbursement’ (TR): monetary payments to participants that are framed as mere refund of transport expenses, but which are of considerable value to recipients. The interest in this case lies not so much in the unsurprising gap between regulatory norms and poor study subjects’ lives, but in the way in which this discrepancy between bioethical discourse and materialities of survival is silenced. In spite of the general awareness that TR indeed is about the material value of research, about value calculation, and expectations of return, it is not publicly discussed as such – unless ironically, in jest, or in private. This double-blindness around ‘reimbursement’ has provoked discussions among ethicists and anthropologists, some of which propose that the work that generates scientific value should be recognised as labour and participants, accordingly, paid. Here, this paper argues that such a re-vision of trial participation as work rather than as a gift for the public good, risks abrogating the possibility of ‘the public’ that is not only a precondition of public medical science, but also its potential product. The supposedly radical solution of tearing away the veils of misrecognition that ‘free’ gifting ideology lays upon the realities of free labour, though analytically plausible, fails to recognise the utopian openings within clinical trial transactions that point beyond the present – towards larger forms of social association, and towards future alignments of scientific possibilities and human lives.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Geissler, P. Wenzel;Kelly, Ann;Pool, Robert
通讯作者：
Pool, Robert
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Molyneux, CS;Peshu, N;Marsh, K
通讯作者：
Marsh, K
影响因子：
1.4
作者：
Anderson, JA;Weijer, C
通讯作者：
Weijer, C
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Rose, N
通讯作者：
Rose, N
DOI：
10.1080/08989629908573939
发表时间：
1999-01-01
期刊：
Accountability in research
影响因子：
--
作者：
Lemmens, Trudo;Elliott, Carl
通讯作者：
Elliott, Carl