



































Title:  Scientific Freedom & Limits- Clinical Research Perspective


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(1):30-34 

 

 30 

 

SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM & LIMITS- CLINICAL RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE 

 

Md. Fakruddin
1*

, Abhijit Chowdhury
1
, Md. Nur Hossain

1
, Khanjada Shahnewaj Bin Mannan

2
 

1
Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST), Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial 

Research (BCSIR), Dhaka, Bangladesh. 

2
Center For Food & Waterborne Diseases, ICDDR,B, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 

Email: fakruddinmurad@gmail.com 

 

ABSTRACT: Being a scientist, especially a clinical research one, is a noble but tough job. Scientific 
job is different from other jobs in terms of working hour and pressure; they need more freedom in their 
job & research that also put lots of responsibility on them. Research is funded by public money and it 
is the responsibility of scientists to gain maximum output from it. Clinical research is very complex and 
involves the use of animal, microbial as well as human samples and volunteers which make it more 
prone to ethical scrutiny. Minority of researchers who commit fraudulent use of public money & 
unethical clinical practice threaten public support for science. Now a day, there is growing concern of 
public and politicians on the freedom of scientists and unethical scientific practice in clinical trials. The 
most efficient measures to prevent scientific misconduct are awareness—notably, self-awareness—
education and transparency. Most of the developed countries have formulated their own guidelines to 
ensure proper utilization and ethical clinical research and trials. Bangladesh is still lagging behind in 
terms of regulation and monitoring of clinical research and trials. This review aims to make related 
peoples to be aware of the necessity of its own guidelines for clinical research and trials. 

Key words: Scientific, Freedom, Limitation, Clinical research 

 

INTRODUCTION: Scientific Research is the only means of elucidating what is unexplored to human 
knowledge

1
. Scientists need freedom of thinking and research to gain maximum output of the money 

spent. The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, which was adopted in 
1997 by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organization (UNESCO), states that ―freedom of research, which is necessary for the progress of 
knowledge, is part of freedom of thought‖

2
. But, this freedom also raises the debate of implementation 

of some regulations to seal off any possible scientific misconduct
3
. Most of the more controversial 

issues in relation to freedom of scientific enquiry and research arise in the fields of medicine, biology 
and genetics where specific research potentially conflicts with the right to life or with the dignity of 
living beings including human

4
.  

Some argues that bioethics and limitation in scientific freedom is suffocating the creativity of 
researchers in the biomedical field, and is seriously limiting the productivity of clinical research

5
. Other 

argues that as research is conducted by public money, there should be transparency, regulation and 
limitation in conducting clinical research so that ay research against morality should not be repeated 
again

6
.  

 

ABUSES OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH: There have been many occasions in the past when shocking 
abuses of human rights were carried out in the name of scientific or medical research.  The worst 

mailto:fakruddinmurad@gmail.com


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(1):30-34 

 

 31 

examples are well known and include the atrocities carried out by Dr. Mengele and others in the 
concentration camps in Nazi Germany under the guise of medical experimentation

7
 and the 

―experiments‖ carried out in the USSR in Stalin‘s time by Prof. Ilya Ivanovich with the intention of 
interbreeding humans and chimpanzees

8
.  Such abuses of human rights were by no means confined 

to totalitarian states, as the infamous example of the ―Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the 
Negro Male‖ demonstrates. This study concerned 616 African American males, who were given blood 
tests in 1932. Four hundred and twelve of those were diagnosed with syphilis.  The test subjects were 
not told they had syphilis and were not treated for it despite the fact that after 1943 penicillin was 
available as a cure.  The purpose of the research was to study the long term effects of untreated 
syphilis.  The research was discontinued only in 1972 after a journalist reported on it.  Meanwhile 
many medical experts had been aware of the study and had raised no objection

9
.  What all these 

examples of human rights abuses have in common is that they were carried out on the subjects of the 
experimentation without their consent

10
.  

 

SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN: Research involving human genome 
and stem cells pose great threat to human race if conducted unethically. Introducing a sudden major 
discontinuity in the human gene pool might well create a major mismatch between our social order and 
individual capabilities

11
. Even a minor perturbation such as a marked change in the sex ratio from its 

present near equality could shake our social structures
12

. Debates on ethical practice and scientific 
freedom are thus mostly raises on research involving human subjects. Past unethical clinical research 
practice involving human subjects warns everyone about the necessity of regulations and scientific 
limits of clinical researchers

13
. Nuremberg code and the declaration of Helsinski reserve the right of 

any individual to choose himself/ herself to be included in any sort of clinical trial. To perform any 
clinical trial involving children, adult, elderly, handicapped or even prisoners, scientist must abide by 
some strict regulations and supervised by ethical review committees and the subjects could be 
included in these trials only by informed consent. No one is allowed to misuse scientific freedom for 
the sake of exploring new knowledge if it showed to be against human morality

14
.  

 

SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM IN RESEARCH INVOLVING ANIMALS: Perhaps the first question to be 
clarified in any discussion of animal research is: which animals are to be included within the scope of 
consideration? 

15
 

Two primary issues can be identified in the animal research debate: (1) the consequences of the 
research and (2) the moral status of animals. Proponents of animal research usually advance 
arguments that appeal rather straightforwardly to the principle of beneficence. The weak form of the 
argument can be formulated as follows: Good consequences are achieved through the use of animals 
in research. A somewhat stronger claim is that at least some of these good consequences can be 
achieved only by means of animal research; that is, no alternative (nonhuman) means to the desired 
end exists

16
. 

The empirical background for the strong claim by proponents of animal research is that intact, live 
animals respond to research interventions in complex ways that cannot be simulated through any 
other research technique involving non-animal systems. For example, administering a drug to a dog or 
presenting a learning stimulus to a rat may produce a complex reaction that affects multiple 
physiological systems

17
. At present such a response simply cannot be duplicated through the 

manipulation of cells in tissue culture or even through the use of sophisticated computer simulations. 
In theory at least, human subjects could be-substituted for animal subjects and would be capable of 
producing the same kinds of complex response. However, given the painful, invasive, and even lethal 
character of much animal research, the use of humans in such research would itself pose serious 
ethical Problems

18
.  

Critics of animal research can also appeal to the principle of beneficence. In response to the weak 
form of the proponents' argument, the critics urge that alternatives to animal research be more 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(1):30-34 

 

 32 

vigorously explored and more actively employed. However, If animal research is the only means for 
achieving a desirable consequence, then the critic can respond by insisting on a conscientious 
weighing of research benefits against harms to animals

19
.  

The second major issue in the animal research debate is the moral status of animals. This issue 
closely parallels the problem of personhood and the question of Fetal status. Some argued that 
animals can have rights because they have, or can have, interests. Among the rights ascribed to 
animals is the right to be treated humanely. Again some regarded animals as mere machines

20
. 

To explain the moral status of animal, let us consider whether humans with extremely limited 
intellectual capacities- for example, severely retarded individuals-should be involved in painful or fatal 
research, as animals often are. Negative answer is based on the premise that we cannot ―safely 
permit anyone to decide which human beings fall short of worthiness‖. Some will argue that  ―our 
respect for the interests of [infants and mentally retarded humans], and our neglect of the members of 
other species with equal or superior  capacities, is mere ‗speciesism‘-a prejudice in favor of ‗our own 
kind‘ that is analogous to, and no more justifiable than, racism‖

21
. 

 

SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM IN RESEARCH AT THE MOLECULAR LEVEL: When we move from the 
world of vertebrate animals to that of bacteria, viruses and DNA, our ethical problems concerning the 
research subjects are immediately simplified. Here there is unlikely to be a problem of sentience, and 
little philosophical ink has been spilled on the moral status of E. coli bacteria

22
. 

Recombinant DNA research involves the joining of segments of DNA- the basic genetic material in all 
living things. This technique is important for many kinds of laboratory research, but in addition it has 
potential technological applications in such diverse fields as medicine, agriculture, and industry. 
Indeed, recombinant DNA methods are already being employed to produce medically important 
hormones, such as insulin and human growth hormone

23
. 

Recombinant DNA research is of philosophical interest primarily as another instance in which risk-
benefit analysis seems appropriate. Numerous reports depicts the potential benefits of recombinant 
DNA research and technology but cautions that the enthusiastic use of new technological capabilities 
in large-scale programs of genetic engineering could introduce ―a sudden major discontinuity in the 
human gene pool‖ and thus could destroy the delicate balance between biological evolution and 
human culture

24
. 

A reasonable public policy on recombinant DNA research in effect should combine the principles of 
autonomy and beneficence: the freedom of scientific inquiry should be protected unless the negative 
consequences of research significantly outweigh its positive consequences

17
. 

 

CONCLUSION: It is the nature of scientists to shake every tree possible to explore ay field unknown 
to them. To do so, sometime they may perform some experiments that may stand against human 
ethics. For this reason, many countries formulates and imposed regulations on scientists performing 
research involving humans, animals or even recombinant DNA. To impose any limit upon freedom of 
inquiry is especially bitter for the scientists whose life is one of inquiry; but science has become too 
potent. It is no longer enough to wave the flag of Galileo. Such type of regulations may protect the 
human race against greater threats in future. 

 

REFERENCES: 

1. Breithaupt H. Freedom and responsibility. EMBO reports 2011; 12:744.  



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(1):30-34 

 

 33 

2. Corbellini G. Scientists, bioethics and democracy: the Italian case and its meanings. J Med Ethics 

2007; 33: 349–352. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.020586 

3. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical Research ethical? Journal of the American 

Medical Association 2000; 283: 2701-2711  

4. Beecher HK. Ethics and Clinical Research. The New England Journal of Medicine 1966; 274(24): 

1354-1360  

5. Bhutta ZA. Why regulate? Ethical regulation of health research. Journal of College of Physicians & 

Surgeons 2001; 11: 537-540. 

6. Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Grisso T. Therapeutic misconception in clinical research: frequency and 

risk factors. IRB: Ethics and Human Research 2004; 26: 1–8. 

7. Grodin MA, Annas GJ. Legacies of Nuremberg: Medical ethics and human rights. Journal of the 

American Medical Association 1996; 276: 1682–1683. 

8. Harris J. Scientific research is a moral duty. Journal of Medical Ethics 2005; 31: 242–248. 

9. Rothman DJ. The shame of medical research. The New York Review of Books 2000; 47 (19): 60–

64. 

10. Fakruddin M, Chowdhury A, Hossain MN, Mannan KSB. Ethics in Clinical Research: Bangladesh 

Journal of Bioethics 2012; 3(3): 16-20 

11. Fakruddin M. Ethics in Stem Cell Research. Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2012; 3(1):13-18 

12. Brody BA, McCullough LB, Sharp RR. Consensus and Controversy in Clinical Research Ethics. 

JAMA 2005; 294(11): 1411-1414  

13. Caldwell PHY, Murphy SB, Butow PH, Craig JC. Clinical trials in children. Lancet 2004; 364: 803–

811. 

14. Sullivan R. The good, the bad and the ugly: Effect of regulation on cancer research. Lancet 

Oncology 2008; 9: 2–3 

15. Ali MA. What Makes Multinational Clinical Research Ethical & How To Minimize Possible 

Exploitation In Host Country? Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2011; 2(2): 20-23  

16. Coughlin SS. Ethical issues in epidemiologic research and public health practice. Emerging 

Themes in Epidemiology 2006; 3:16. doi:10.1186/1742-7622-3-16  

17. Gilman RH, Anderton C, Kosek M, Garcia HH and Evans CA. How many committees does it take 

to make a project ethical? Lancet 2002; 60: 1025-1026 

18. Gilman RH, Gracia HH. Ethics review procedures for research in developing countries: a basic 

presumption of guilt. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2004; 171(3): 248-249. 

19. Joseph KS. Ethics in clinical research: searching for absolutes. CMAJ 1998; 158:1303-1305 

20. Hyder AA, Wali SA, Khan AN, Teoh NB, Kass NE and Dawson L. Ethical review of health 

research: a perspective from developing country researchers. Journal Medical Ethics 2004; 30(1):  



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(1):30-34 

 

 34 

68-72 

21. Macpherson CC. Ethics committees. Research ethics: beyond the guidelines. Developing World 

Bioethics 2001; 1(1): 57-68. 

22. Pandey A, Aggarwal A, Seth SD, Maulik M & Juneja A. Strengthening ethics in clinical research. 

Indian J Med Res 2011; 133: 339-340  

23. Rid A, Wendler D. A framework for risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research. Kennedy 

Institute of Ethics Journal 2011; 21(2): 141–179. 

24. Stewart PM, Stears A, Tomlinson JW, Brown MJ. Regulation—the real threat to clinical research. 

British Medical Journal 2008; 337: 1085–1087. 

 


