Third-party risks in research: Should IRBs address them?

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 1-5

  Hausman, Daniel M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RESEARCH SUBJECT; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARD;

CLINICAL TRIALS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; THIRD-PARTY CONSENT;

EID: 34250657398     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (8)

1. Hausman DM. Group risks, risks to groups and group engagement in genetics research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, forthcoming.
2. Kimmelman J. Medical research, risk, and bystanders. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2005;27(4):1-6.
3. Patai R. The Arab Mind. Revised edition. New York: Hatherleigh Press, 2002.
4. Pryce-Jones D. The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee, 2002.
5. Bok S. Freedom and risk, In: Holton G, Morison R. Limits of Scientific Inquiry. New York: W.W. Norton, 1979, p. 115-127.
6. Resnik D, Sharp R. Protecting third parties in research. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2006;28(4):1-7.
7. CIOMS. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva, 2002.
8. See ref. 6, Resnik and Sharp 2006, p. 5.