. 
. 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Ethics of Research with Human Subjects, Interculturality, and the Legitimacy of Science
Camilo Molina[1] Carla Celi[2]
1. Insitituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales - IAEN, Ecuador.
2. Universidad Amawtay Wasi, Ecuador.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.16921/pfr.v11i1.395
PRÁCTICA FAMILIAR RURAL│Vol.11│No.3│Marzo 2026│Recibido: 24/02/2025│Aprobado: 24/03/2026
Cómo citar este artículoMolina Bolívar JC, Celi C. PhD Ética de la investigación con seres humanos, interculturalidad y legitimidad de la ciencia. PFR [Internet]. Marzo 2026; 11(1). Disponible en: https://practicafamiliarrural.org/index.php/pfr/article/view/395 |
Compartir en:
. .
Ética de la investigación con seres humanos, interculturalidad y legitimidad de la ciencia
Abstract
This text presents a response to the dialogue surrounding articles published over the past five years on the ethics of research involving human subjects in the context of the pandemic and its aftermath. It identifies how the health crisis shaped decisions made under uncertainty, impacting risk distribution, fairness, and the legitimacy of public responses. It highlights the intercultural perspective as fundamental to understanding care, medical authority, and the relationship between local knowledge and science. It situates the debate within a context of misinformation, polarization, and eroding public trust in science, along with tensions in international health cooperation. It argues that cultural diversity demands rigorous bioethical frameworks that safeguard scientific integrity in research involving human subjects. It proposes strengthening a global, interdisciplinary, and humanistic bioethics that integrates social sciences, public policy, and health, and calls for a renewal of the academic debate on ethics, scientific legitimacy, and health systems in the post-pandemic era.
Keywords: bioethics, ethics of research with human subjects, public health policies, public health
Resumen
El texto presenta una respuesta al diálogo sobre artículos publicados en los últimos cinco años en torno a la ética de la investigación con seres humanos en el contexto de la pandemia y sus efectos posteriores. Identifica que la crisis sanitaria configuró decisiones bajo incertidumbre que incidieron en la distribución del riesgo, la justicia y la legitimidad de las respuestas públicas. Destaca la perspectiva intercultural como base para comprender el cuidado, la autoridad médica y la relación entre saberes locales y ciencia. Sitúa el debate en un escenario de desinformación, polarización y debilitamiento de la confianza pública en la ciencia, junto con tensiones en la cooperación internacional en salud. Señala que la diversidad cultural exige marcos bioéticos rigurosos que resguarden la integridad científica en la investigación con seres humanos. Propone fortalecer una bioética global, interdisciplinaria y humanista que articule ciencias sociales, políticas públicas y salud, y plantea renovar el debate académico sobre ética, legitimidad científica y sistemas de salud en la etapa pospandemia.
Palabras clave: bioética, ética de invetsigación con seres humanos, políticas públicas en salud, salud pública
Dear Editor,
This manuscript responds to the letter by Bastidas G and Bastidas D published in Práctica Familiar Rural 7(3) [1]. Their contribution is relevant because it engages directly with the earlier interdisciplinary work on bioethics in the context of the pandemic in the Global South [2], as well as with the previous issue devoted to bioethics and ethics of care [3]. Together, these publications have shaped more than five years of sustained reflection within the journal on research ethics involving human subjects, justice, interculturality, and public responsibility from Southern contexts, bringing into focus the relationship between health, power, and inequality.
Against this background, the pandemic and its aftermath stand as a setting of ethical decision-making under uncertainty, with consequences that extend beyond the immediate emergency. The unequal distribution of risk and social burdens raised questions of justice, proportionality, and rights protection, in line with developments in public health ethics, the social sciences, and bioethics [4,5]. The debate has since expanded to examine the legitimacy of state responses and their social impact.
In this continuity, bioethics assumes a central role in relation to cultural diversity. Understandings of risk, care, and medical authority vary across cultural settings, which calls for bioethical frameworks attentive to these differences [6]. Health care practice requires intercultural dialogue and recognition of local knowledge as part of building legitimacy in public health [7]. From its modern origins, bioethics has been linked to respect for diversity and to questioning hegemonic narratives, opening space for the inclusion of Southern epistemologies, particularly in matters that affect access to and provision of health services in research involving human subjects [8].
Within this perspective, the proposal of Van Rensselaer Potter remains conceptually relevant. By conceiving bioethics as a bridge between scientific knowledge, social values, and the future of life, Potter articulated intergenerational responsibility, technological prudence, and ecological justice [9,10]. This approach situates the pandemic within broader crises that involve environmental degradation, inequality, and global governance.
The recent historical context has been marked by converging systemic crises. Financial fragility, extreme wealth concentration, and environmental deterioration have placed sustained pressure on contemporary political and social systems [11,12]. The pandemic extended beyond strictly biomedical concerns and entered public debate and social organization, including sensitive areas such as communication, risk management, and international coordination [15]. These dynamics influenced public perceptions of health governance, the legitimacy of sanitary measures, and the relationship between scientific knowledge and society.
For this reason, strengthening the legitimacy of science in the post-pandemic period is essential. Growing polarization, misinformation, and institutional distrust have undermined confidence in scientific knowledge in health [14]. At the same time, research involving human subjects has faced renewed criticism, alongside anti-scientific rhetoric and reduced funding for multilateral institutions such as the World Health Organization. The rise of extreme positions has reshaped public debate and weakened cooperation in health.
In this context, bioethics must address the articulation between respect for cultural plurality and adherence to scientific standards, safeguard the integrity of knowledge, and prevent the reproduction of structural asymmetries. This balance remains central to contemporary discussions in global bioethics and public health.
The pandemic also revealed fragmentation within the international system, asymmetrical distribution of health resources, and structural inequalities in access to basic living conditions. These conditions reinforce the need for a global bioethics grounded in multidisciplinary and intersectional perspectives, oriented toward the defense of life, dignity, and collective well-being.
Under these circumstances, the journal is invited to promote a new issue devoted to bioethical debate in the face of current emergencies. It would be timely to examine the crisis of globalization, the fragmentation of multilateralism and its impact on public decision-making, the financing of public health as a global good, the legitimacy of science, attacks on biomedical research, representation in the production of knowledge and medicines, and the ethical foundations of health systems committed to equity, legitimacy, and intergenerational responsibility. Advancing bioethics through an interdisciplinary approach that brings together social sciences, health, and public policy would strengthen ethical frameworks for research involving human subjects in complex and diverse contexts. This effort aims to consolidate a situated, critical, and well-grounded bioethical reflection.
References