Literature DB >> 19608947

Understanding bureaucracy in health science ethics: toward a better institutional review board.

Barry Bozeman1, Catherine Slade, Paul Hirsch.   

Abstract

Research involving human participants continues to grow dramatically, fueled by advances in medical technology, globalization of research, and financial and professional incentives. This creates increasing opportunities for ethical errors with devastating effects. The typical professional and policy response to calamities involving human participants in research is to layer on more ethical guidelines or strictures. We used a recent case-the Johns Hopkins University/Kennedy Kreiger Institute Lead Paint Study-to examine lessons learned since the Tuskegee Syphilis Study about the role of institutionalized science ethics in the protection of human participants in research. We address the role of the institutional review board as the focal point for policy attention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19608947      PMCID: PMC2724460          DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.152389

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  23 in total

1.  Research on humans faces scrutiny; new policies adopted.

Authors:  P T Kefalides
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-03-21       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Human subjects. Court rebukes Hopkins for lead paint study.

Authors:  J Kaiser
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-08-31       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  In defense of the Hopkins Lead Abatement Studies.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  Institutional review boards as an instrument of assessment: research involving human subjects in the U.S.

Authors:  Bradford H Gray
Journal:  Sci Technol Human Values       Date:  1978

5.  Informed consent for research on stored blood and tissue samples: a survey of institutional review board practices.

Authors:  Mary Terrell White; Jennifer Gamm
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2002 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.622

6.  Time, place, and consciousness: three dimensions of meaning for US institutional review boards.

Authors:  Sarah B Putney; Sofia Gruskin
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Financial conflicts of interest in human subjects research: the problem of institutional conflicts.

Authors:  Mark Barnes; Patrik S Florencio
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.718

8.  U.S. investigating Johns Hopkins study of lead paint hazard.

Authors:  T Lewin
Journal:  N Y Times Web       Date:  2001-08-24

9.  The need to understand IRB deliberations.

Authors:  Philip J Candilis; Charles W Lidz; Robert M Arnold
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb

Review 10.  Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees.

Authors:  Randi Shaul
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2002-03-11       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  2 in total

1.  Creating research capacity through a tribally based institutional review board.

Authors:  Deborah J Morton; Joely Proudfit; Daniel Calac; Martina Portillo; Geneva Lofton-Fitzsimmons; Theda Molina; Raymond Flores; Barbara Lawson-Risso; Romelle Majel-McCauley
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Does Resolution 8430 of 1993 respond to the current needs of ethics in health research with human beings in Colombia?

Authors:  Julio Cesar Mateus; María Teresa Varela; Diana María Caicedo; Nhora Lucía Arias; Cruz Deisy Jaramillo; Liliana Cristina Morales; Gloria Inés Palma
Journal:  Biomedica       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 0.935

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.