• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Access to Justice Lab logo

The Access to Justice Lab

at Harvard Law School

  • About
  • Projects
  • Publications
  • Resources
  • People
    • A2J Lab Staff
    • Advisory Board
    • Collaborators
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Sophie Laing

Treating Vulnerable Populations

March 6, 2018 by Sophie Laing

And here the A2J Lab goes again talking about RCTs and the lessons we can learn from the medical field! This time, the topic in question is ethics.

Two prominent figures from the medical research community, Susan Ellenberg and Jason Schwartz, recently presented at HLS as part of the Health Policy and Bioethics Consortia put on by the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School, the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics. The panel discussion focused on conducting RCTs during public health crises, with specific emphasis on lessons learned from trials during the recent outbreaks of Ebola and Zika.

Ellenberg in particular spoke to the ethics of RCTs when testing on vulnerable populations and working within community groups, issues that we at the Lab are constantly aware of as the Lab works closely with our field partners, who range from legal aid providers to the courts to administrative agencies.

The ethics of RCTs in medicine are often a legitimate concern, particularly given the history of scientific experimentation in the U.S. (For more information on the Lab’s perspective on RCTs and ethics in law, see this prior post.) There’s a lot to be learned from the medical research community here. For example, during the Zika outbreak it became clear that the disease affects mothers and fetuses in very distinct ways. However, pregnant women were initially excluded from clinical trials because of the strong ethical protections in place for this group, considered a vulnerable population. This exclusion protected the group from potential harm during the study but also prevented the medical community from learning how vaccines could impact such a high-needs group. This question is still pending research.

Vulnerable populations also have a history of raising their voices in support of randomized evaluation. Ellenberg spoke about how, during the AIDS epidemic, activists became some of the strongest proponents of RCTs. They realized they wanted to effective treatments, not treatments that were a shot in the dark. So community partners, activists, and researchers sat down together to figure out the best way to combat AIDS.

Innovation by itself does not lead to more effective intervention. We can keep innovating, coming up with new document assembly tools, and changing procedural rules, but the act of innovating does not guarantee successful outcomes. In law, as in medicine, we should learn what works from our innovations and why, perhaps uncovering deficits within our legal system and approaches to access to justice along the way. During public health emergencies there have been huge knowledge deficits. The same can be said about the now decades-long access to justice crisis in the U.S.

Both Schwartz and Ellenberg spoke to the fact that the medical field is still struggling with RCTs; in this case, particularly the ins and outs of when and how to conduct them, especially with vulnerable populations or in times of crisis. Their efficacy is still being questioned, new working groups created, and declarations updated that underline the ethical guidelines through which this testing can take place. Imagine what law could accomplish if, as a field, we accepted, promoted, debated, and implemented rigorous research that could allow us to advance access to justice not only in the present, but also for generations in the future. There’s a lot of talk about trying to achieve 100% access to justice, but it’s hard to consistently build towards that when we aren’t leaving future generations any data or evidence-based lessons learned from the present.

Top 10 A2J Research Priorities: #5

July 24, 2017 by Sophie Laing

We’re back with our Top 10 A2J Research Priorities YouTube series! #5 on the list is “inducing action.”

As a reminder, we at the Lab have come up with a list of what we consider to be the top 10 access to justice research priorities. This list will be published weekly on our YouTube channel, in quick 2-3 minute videos to wake you up and get you excited about how ripe the field of access to justice is for experimentation, research, and, of course, RCTs.

Here’s our fifth installment:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Guest Post: Another RCT Tackling Failure to Appear, Part I

July 18, 2017 by Sophie Laing

Today’s guest post comes from two Harvard Ph.D. students in Public Policy and Economics, respectively, Helen Ho and Natalia Emmanuel. Helen and Natalia are affiliates of the Lab and have been working on their own randomized control trial (“RCT”) focused on failures to appear (“FTAs”) for arraignments. If you’ve been following our blog you might have read about FTA in connection to the Pre-Trial Release Study underway in Dane County, WI. Helen and Natalia’s study focuses specifically on interventions to reduce FTA. This post is a first in a two-part series describing their study.

Take it away, Helen and Natalia!

[Read more…] about Guest Post: Another RCT Tackling Failure to Appear, Part I

We Need Your Help with the Financial Distress Research Project!

July 12, 2017 by Sophie Laing

Help the Financial Distress Research Project (FDRP) Over Its First Hurdle

by Marie Lawrence, A2J Lab Summer Research Associate

In case you missed it, the Financial Distress Research Project (FDRP) officially launched in early June! (Read our launch post here.) Over the past month, the A2J Lab has mailed more than 2,000 letters to people being sued in debt collection cases in Connecticut. Our letters recruit defendants into the study, which offers user-friendly self-help materials or direct representation in their small claims cases. After more than six years preparing to launch this large-scale effort, it’s gratifying to be finally on our way.

There’s only one hiccup: people aren’t enrolling.

[Read more…] about We Need Your Help with the Financial Distress Research Project!

Top 10 A2J Research Priorities: #4

July 10, 2017 by Sophie Laing

Happy Monday! We’re back with our Top 10 A2J Research Priorities YouTube series. This time, Faculty Director Jim Greiner talks about the effectiveness of different service levels.

As a reminder, we at the Lab have come up with a list of what we consider to be the top 10 access to justice research priorities. This list will be published weekly on our YouTube channel, in quick 2-3 minute videos to wake you up and get you excited about how ripe the field of access to justice is for experimentation, research, and, of course, RCTs.

Here’s our fourth installment:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to Next Page »

Using empirical research to make the U.S. justice system work better for everyone.

The Access to Justice Lab

Copyright © 2023 · Monochrome Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

 

Loading Comments...