Response to Merz

Pepijn Al; Jamie Brehaut; Charles Weijer

doi:10.1186/s13063-023-07693-3

Response to Merz

Trials. 2023 Oct 6;24(1):649. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07693-3.

Authors

Pepijn Al¹, Jamie Brehaut^{2

3}, Charles Weijer⁴

Affiliations

¹ Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, ON, Canada. pal@uwo.ca.
² Centre for Implementation Research, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
³ School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
⁴ Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, and Philosophy, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Abstract

Jon Merz raises two objections to our article on the ethics of behavioral influences in trial recruitment. In this response, we defend our article against these objections. We argue that Merz's critique rests on a misunderstanding of our article, defend the daily life standard as a guardrail for leveraging cognitive biases, and argue that rejecting all behavioral influences is not a helpful nor a sustainable answer to their increasing use in trial recruitment.

Publication types

Letter

Grants and funding

169055/CAPMC/ CIHR/Canada