IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/fgxun.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Some Questions of Ethics in RCTs

Author

Listed:
  • Khera, Reetika

Abstract

Questions of ethics in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in development economics need greater attention and a wider perspective. RCTs are meant to be governed by the three principles laid out in the Belmont Report, but often violated them, e.g. when local laws are flouted. In other cases, the framework of the Belmont Report itself has proved inadequate: for instance, when there are unintended outcomes or adverse events for which no-one is held accountable. Primarily using RCTs conducted in India, this paper highlights eight areas of concern. RCTs also have a disproportionate influence on shaping research agendas and on policy. Though ethical issues have been raised, there has been little engagement from the RCT community – a manifestation of its power in the profession. As current safeguards (such as oversight by Institutional Review Boards) have failed to protect human subjects, the concluding section discusses possible ways to resolve these issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Khera, Reetika, 2021. "Some Questions of Ethics in RCTs," SocArXiv fgxun, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:fgxun
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/fgxun
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/60307deb4ad52e01cd6e8fa7/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/fgxun?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Goel, Deepti & Meenakshi, J. V. & De Souza, Zaeen, 2022. "Did the nation-wide implementation of e-FMS in MGNREGS result in reduced expenditures? A re-examination of the evidence," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1146, Global Labor Organization (GLO).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:fgxun. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.