ABSTRACT
There are few challenges to research when the subjects are competent and the research presents more than minimal risk with no promise of direct benefit. The principal reason for allowing such research is that we should respect the autonomy of competent subjects. In the final chapter I argue that we have additional moral intuitions stemming from commutative justice. I argue that concerns generated by commutative justice serve as an additional criterion for assessing permissible research. My argument aims to justify having epistemic diffidence for the claim that ‘risky research is permissible because the subjects consented to it.’ To this end, I highlight our intuitions informing this notion of commutative justice and conclude that all human subjects who are exposed to more than minimal risk research should enjoy the same protections as those given subjects who cannot consent (e.g., children).
