The moral claim for obligatory dissemination of study results: part one


  • P Motloba
  • P Moipolai



retributive, embodied


The process of taking data from a person or community when doing research, and then publishing such data and one’s academic interpretation thereof in an academic journal, is usually well protected and scrutinized by several ethical checks and balances. However, to disseminate research findings back to the community in which the research was conducted is seen as a fundamental principle in ethical research practice that seldom materializes into reality. When researchers appropriately respect their obligation to do this,
it is often filled with nuanced challenges. Researchers must consider how to convey complex findings in a way that is understandable and actionable for the community. Different communities have different views on norms, values and communication preferences.
Researchers must be culturally sensitive in how they share findings to ensure relevance and respect. Dissemination may require resources such as translation services, community meetings or educational materials. It’s essential to share not only positive results but also negative or inconclusive findings. This avoids bias and helps the community make informed decisions.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


Association of World Medical Associations. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013;310: 2191-2194 DOI:

Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000; 283: 2701-11 DOI:

Hodson JD. The Ethics of Legal Coercion. Springer Netherlands, 1983: 1-14, 1983 DOI:

Cranor C. Toward a Theory of Respect for Persons. American Philosophical Quarterly 1975; 12: 309-19

Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. NEJM 1987;317:141-145. DOI:

Mann H. Research ethics committees and public dissemination of clinical trial results. Lancet 2002; 360: 406-408. DOI:

Pandit P. Toward a More Credible Principle of Beneficence. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research 2021; 38: 407-22. DOI:

Gillon R. Utilitarianism. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1985;290:1411-3. (1985) DOI:

Misselbrook D. An A-Z of medical philosophy: Bentham, Mill, and Utilitarianism. Br J Gen Pract 2013; 63: 98. bjgp 13X663172 (2013) DOI:

Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics,7th ed. New York:

Oxford University Press, 2013

Andersson GB, Chapman JR, Dekutoski MB, Dettori J, Fehlings MG, et al. Do no harm: the balance of “beneficence” and “non-maleficence”. Spine 2010;20:35(9S):S2-8 DOI:

Murphy, LB. The Demands of Beneficence. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1993;22: 267-92

Cummiskey D. Kantian consequentialism. Ethics 1900;100: 586-615 DOI:

Dean, R. Cummiskey’s Kantian Consequentialism. Utilitas 2000;12:25-40 DOI:

Hill J, Thomas E. Beyond Duty: Kantian Ideals of Respect, Beneficence, and Appreciation, online end. Oxford University Press, 2021. DOI:

Chappell, SG. Lists of the Virtues. Ethics and Politics 2015;17: 74-93

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Bull Med Ethics 2002;182:17-23




How to Cite

Motloba, P., & Moipolai, P. (2023). The moral claim for obligatory dissemination of study results: part one. South African Dental Journal, 78(07), 366–368.