NIH Case Study
As a member of the committee of the National Institute for Health (NIH) charged with the responsibility to evaluate two projects, namely, a 5-year community-based trial of an oral rotavirus vaccine and another 5-year subsidy of a continuing influenza vaccine distribution program of DHHS administered throughout the US. I will vote for project number 2 on the subsidy for an ongoing influenza vaccine.
The rationale for voting this project is that it has more benefits than costs. First, the project will save more lives than the first one. According to the data on the project, the vaccine promises to save 20,000 Americans who are elderly and those with deficient immunity. The rotavirus vaccine will save fewer children than the subsidy project would protect elderly Americans. Because rotavirus accounts for just 10% of all diarrhea affecting infants in the South American country, the vaccine will save the lives of 80% of 20,000 cases of infant diarrhea. The 80% corresponds to the proportion of all infants diarrhea hospitalizations caused by rotavirus. Mainly, this means that the vaccine will save about 16,000.
In comparison, the subsidy project will benefit 4,000 more people than the rotavirus vaccine. Besides, the second project will help more people than the first. Specifically, the number of individuals who will benefit from the subsidy vaccine exceeds those of the first project by 8,000,000 for the same cost; thus, the second project is more cost-effective than the first. Besides, the second project deals with a more established product than the first. Although the retrovirus vaccine has been approved by the Food and Drug Agency (FDA), its long-term effects are not known. Therefore, it raises some ethical concerns, as it amounts to the use of innocent and poor communities for the benefit of the researcher. In line with Rachel’s argument, the moral fact in the first project is that the vaccine poses some unknown danger to beneficiaries, although it has not been proven yet (190). It is not fair to treat other people as lesser humans. The vaccine may have long-term effects. Exposing 2,000,000 children to that risk is somewhat unethical, given the fact that the project is a trial vaccine means that the benefits to the children are not guaranteed. It amounts to treating children of low-income families in the Latino country as guinea pigs for testing drugs.
On the other hand, the rotavirus project could be a better option since it targets younger members of the community who have many life-years before them. Although the FDA has approved it, the NIH should postpone the project until the long-term effects or lack of is established before exposing millions of poor children to health risks. Those who argue against the second project could say that older individuals and people with compromised immunity are prone to other diseases that do not have vaccines because pathogens do not cause them. However, even children are vulnerable to other conditions, which have no vaccines such as HIV and cancer, as well as diabetes. So, the argument is not reliable. The benefits of the second project outweigh those of the first project. On the other hand, the harm for the first project outweighs those of the first. Both groups are vulnerable. Not only does the second project save more lives, but it is also morally upright and ethical.