title: What Do the Various Principles of Justice Mean Within the Concept of Benefit Sharing?
abstract: The concept of benefit sharing pertains to the act of giving something in return to the participants, communities, and the country that have participated in global health research or bioprospecting activities. One of the key concerns of benefit sharing is the ethical justifications or reasons to support the practice of the concept in global health research and bioprospecting. This article evaluates one of such ethical justifications and its meaning to benefit sharing, namely justice. We conducted a systematic review to map the various principles of justice that are linked to benefit sharing and analysed their meaning to the concept of benefit sharing. Five principles of justice (commutative, distributive, global, procedural, and compensatory) have been shown to be relevant in the nuances of benefit sharing in both global health research and bioprospecting. The review findings indicate that each of these principles of justice provides a different perspective for a different benefit sharing rationale. For example, commutative justice provides a benefit sharing rationale that is focused on fair exchange of benefits between research sponsors and communities. Distributive justice produces a benefit sharing rationale that is focused on improving the health needs of the vulnerable research communities. We have suggested that a good benefit sharing framework particularly in global health research would be more beneficial if it combines all the principles of justice in its formulation. Nonetheless, there is a need for empirical studies to examine the various principles of justice and their nuances in benefit sharing among stakeholders in global health research.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, 35 Kapucijnenvoer, Box 7001, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
authors.forename: Bege
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3820-1871
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Dauda
authors.affiliation: Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, 35 Kapucijnenvoer, Box 7001, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium. yvonne.denier@med.kuleuven.be.
authors.forename: Yvonne
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Denier
authors.affiliation: Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, 35 Kapucijnenvoer, Box 7001, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium. kris.dierickx@med.kuleuven.be.
authors.forename: Kris
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Dierickx
mesh_terms: D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics*; D003210:Concept Formation / Q000941:ethics*; D003299:Cooperative Behavior; D028744:Ethics Committees, Research; D014943:Global Health; D006291:Health Policy; D006295:Health Resources; D006301:Health Services Needs and Demand; D006801:Humans; D033181:Information Dissemination / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D007391:International Cooperation / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D012935:Social Justice
keywords: Benefit sharing; Justice; Post-trial obligations; Research ethics; Resource-limited countries
references.citation: Bioethics. 2014 Oct;28(8):387-96
references.pmid: 23278523
references.citation: Bioethics. 2014 Oct;28(8):397-404
references.pmid: 23025255
references.citation: Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jun;10(6):26-35
references.pmid: 20526966
references.citation: Malawi Med J. 2008 Jun;20(2):42-5
references.pmid: 19537431
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2007 Apr;33(4):205-9
references.pmid: 17400617
references.citation: Dev World Bioeth. 2004 May;4(1):42-57
references.pmid: 15086373
references.citation: Hastings Cent Rep. 2010 Jan-Feb;40(1):24-33
references.pmid: 20169653
references.citation: Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2010 Mar;20(1):51-73
references.pmid: 20506694
references.citation: Dev World Bioeth. 2006 Dec;6(3):144-57
references.pmid: 17038006
references.citation: Dev World Bioeth. 2006 Dec;6(3):122-34
references.pmid: 17038004
references.citation: Hastings Cent Rep. 2010 Jul-Aug;40(4):34-45
references.pmid: 20669781
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2012 Feb;38(2):121-6
references.pmid: 22080465
references.citation: Dev World Bioeth. 2011 Aug;11(2):75-81
references.pmid: 21118352
references.citation: Hastings Cent Rep. 2010 Jan-Feb;40(1):3
references.pmid: 20166507
references.citation: Clin Genet. 2000 Nov;58(5):364-6
references.pmid: 11140835
references.citation: Hastings Cent Rep. 2004 May-Jun;34(3):17-27
references.pmid: 15281723
references.citation: Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2000 Fall;9(4):562-5
references.pmid: 11000973
references.citation: BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Dec 24;15:90
references.pmid: 25539983
references.citation: Bioethics. 2008 May;22(4):239-44
references.pmid: 18405322
references.citation: Bioethics. 2006 Sep;20(5):248-53
references.pmid: 17100008
references.citation: Hastings Cent Rep. 2005 Jan-Feb;35(1):24-37
references.pmid: 15799498
references.citation: BMC Med Ethics. 2013 Sep 12;14:36
references.pmid: 24028325
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2007 Sep;4(9):e273
references.pmid: 17850178
references.citation: Lancet. 2003 Jul 19;362(9379):242-4
references.pmid: 12885490
references.citation: Dev World Bioeth. 2006 Dec;6(3):135-43
references.pmid: 17038005
references.citation: Community Genet. 2000;3(2):88-92
references.pmid: 11865922