Viewpoint: Developing a research ethics consultation service to foster responsive and responsible clinical research

Academic Medicine

Volumn 82, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 900-904

  De Melo Martín, Inmaculada ^a   Palmer, Larry I ^b,c   Fins, Joseph J ^a,d  

^a WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b MIT Sloan School of Management   (United States)

^c University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

^d Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOETHICS; BIOMEDICINE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONSULTATION; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

EID: 34548363859     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318132f0ee     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. DuVal G, Clarridge B, Gensler G, Danis M. A national survey of U.S. internists' experiences with ethical dilemmas and ethics consultation. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:251-258.
2. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45: Public Welfare. Department of Health & Human Services. Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects. Available at: (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm). Accessed May 30, 2007.
3. Agrawal SK, Fins JJ. Ethics committees and case consultation in the hospital setting. In: Siegler E, Mirafzali S, Foust JB, eds. A Guide to Hospitals and Inpatient Care. New York, NY: Springer; 2003.
4. The National Research Act. Pub. L. 93-348.
5. Beecher HK. Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1966;274:1354-1360.
6. Wadman M. London's disastrous drug trial has serious side effects for research. Nature. 2006;440:388-389.
7. Giles J. Researchers break the rules in frustration at review boards. Nature. 2005; 438:136-137.
8. Federman DD, Hanna KE, Rodriguez LL, eds. Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002.
9. Association of American Medical Colleges Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research. Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress II: principles and recommendations for oversight of an institution's financial interests in human subjects research. Acad Med. 2003; 78:237-245.
10. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; 1979.
11. Dewey J. The pattern of inquiry. In: Boydston JA, ed. The Collected Works of John Dewey, 1882-1953: The Later Works. Vol 12. Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press; 1969-1991:105-122.
12. Gillam L. Expertise in research ethics: is there any such thing? Monash Bioeth Rev. 2004;23: 58-64.
13. Moskop JC. Informed consent and refusal of treatment: challenges for emergency physicians. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2006; 24:605-618.
14. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants. JAMA. 2005;294:737-740.
15. Institute of Medicine. Integrity in Scientific Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002.
16. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, Crain AL, De Vries R. Scientists' perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006;1:51-66.
17. Neuroethics needed. Nature. 2006;441:907.
18. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS, eds. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer; 2003.
19. Pilcher H. Bioethics: dial 'E' for ethics. Nature. 2006;440:1104-1105.