Literature DB >> 20694909

Research exceptionalism.

James Wilson1, David Hunter.   

Abstract

Research involving human subjects is much more stringently regulated than many other nonresearch activities that appear to be at least as risky. A number of prominent figures now argue that research is overregulated. We argue that the reasons typically offered to justify the present system of research regulation fail to show that research should be subject to more stringent regulation than other equally risky activities. However, there are three often overlooked reasons for thinking that research should be treated as a special case. First, research typically involves the imposition of risk on people who do not benefit from this risk imposition. Second, research depends on public trust. Third, the complexity of the moral decision making required favors ethics committees as a regulative solution for research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20694909     DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2010.482630

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Bioeth        ISSN: 1526-5161            Impact factor:   11.229


  8 in total

1.  What we worry about when we worry about the ethics of clinical research.

Authors:  David Wendler
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2011-06

2.  Can significant differences in regulating medical and non-medical research be justified?

Authors:  David Hunter
Journal:  Monash Bioeth Rev       Date:  2014 Sep-Dec

3.  Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test.

Authors:  Tjeerd-Pieter van Staa; Ben Goldacre; Martin Gulliford; Jackie Cassell; Munir Pirmohamed; Adel Taweel; Brendan Delaney; Liam Smeeth
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-02-07

4.  Reciprocity-based reasons for benefiting research participants: most fail, the most plausible is problematic.

Authors:  Neema Sofaer
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2013-12-06       Impact factor: 1.898

5.  For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies.

Authors:  Emily Largent
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  An adapted instrument to assess informed consent comprehension among youth and parents in rural western Kenya: a validation study.

Authors:  Muhammed Olanrewaju Afolabi; Stuart Rennie; Denise Dion Hallfors; Tracy Kline; Susannah Zeitz; Frederick S Odongo; Nyaguara O Amek; Winnie K Luseno
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-07-12       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model.

Authors:  Olivia Grimwade; Julian Savulescu; Alberto Giubilini; Justin Oakley; Joshua Osowicki; Andrew J Pollard; Anne-Marie Nussberger
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  The ethics of resource allocation in translational genomic medicine.

Authors:  Christian Munthe
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2021-03-12
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.