Literature DB >> 22397090

Contextualising merit and integrity within human research.

Ian Pieper1, Colin J H Thomson.   

Abstract

The first consideration of any Australian Human Research Ethics Committee should be to satisfy itself that the project before them is worth undertaking. If the project does not add to the body of knowledge, if it does not improve social welfare or individual wellbeing then the use of human participants, their tissue or their data must be questioned. Sometimes, however, committees are criticised for appearing to adopt the role of scientific review committees. The intent of this paper is to provide researchers with an understanding of the ethical importance of demonstrating the merit of their research project and to help them develop protocols that show ethics committees that adequate attention has been paid to this central tenet in dealing ethically with human research participants. Any person proposing human research must be prepared to show that it is worthwhile. This paper will clarify the relationship between research merit and integrity, research ethics and the responsibilities of human research ethics committees.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22397090     DOI: 10.1007/BF03351329

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Monash Bioeth Rev        ISSN: 1321-2753


  4 in total

1.  The role of professional societies in promoting integrity in research.

Authors:  Nicholas H Steneck
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec

2.  Rethinking research ethics.

Authors:  Rosamond Rhodes
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 11.229

3.  Publication bias in clinical research.

Authors:  P J Easterbrook; J A Berlin; R Gopalan; D R Matthews
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects.

Authors:  J M Stern; R J Simes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-09-13
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.