Declining enrolment in a clinical trial and injurious misconceptions: is there a flipside to the therapeutic misconception?
The term 'therapeutic misconception' (TM) was introduced in 1982 to conceptualize how some psychiatry trial participants perceived and interpreted their involvement in research. TM has since been identified in many settings and is a major component in research ethics discussions. A qualitative study included a subgroup of interviews with five parents (two couples, one mother) who declined to enrol their baby in a neonatal trial. Analysis suggested the possibility of a counterpart to TM which, given the original terminology, we term the 'injurious misconception' (IM). While TM is closely linked to the elision of care and research, and involves an over-stated sense of benefit and protection, IM may be a product of a particularly keen and discomforting sense of distinctions between care and research and a correspondingly over-stated sense of risk and threat.
There seems to be a need for clarification on a number of issues that are seminal for the design community: for example, the constructs of invention, of creativity and of innovation (or innovative) appear to be used interchangeably. They are all a vital interest for design but they are different things. Furthermore there is a failure to distinguish between what design has a legitimate interest in or should contribute to and that which is its direct responsibility. ::: ::: The authors of this paper will seek to clarify these and other issues. One of these interests is the increasing demand for sustainable practice: design has a crucial role here and this paper will explore how computer aids can be a powerful tool in this area and also more generally in both design and manufacture.