Research exceptionalism

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 10, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 45-54

  Wilson, James ^a   Hunter, David ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ethics committees; Human subjects research; Professional ethics; Regulatory issues; Research ethics; Risk benefit analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMED CONSENT; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MORALITY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLIC OPINION; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; RISK; TRUST; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED KINGDOM;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGISLATION AS TOPIC; MORAL OBLIGATIONS; PUBLIC OPINION; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RISK; TRUST; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 77955314704     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2010.482630     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Appelbaum, P. S., L. H. Roth, C. W. Lidz, P. Benson, and W. Winslade. 1987. False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Center Reports 17: 20-24.
2. Arshad, A., and P. D. Arkwright. 2008. Status of healthcare studies submitted to UK research ethics committees for approval in 2004-5. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 393-395.
3. Ashcroft, R. 2001. Money, consent, and exploitation in research. American Journal of Bioethics 1(2): 62-63.
4. Ashcroft, R. 2002. The ethics and governance of medical research: What does regulation have to do with morality? New Review of Bioethics 1(1): 41-58.
5. Ashcroft, R. 2008. Fair process and the redundancy of bioethics: A polemic. Public Health Ethics 1: 3-9.
6. Athanassoulis, N., and J. Wilson. 2009. When is deception in research ethical? Clinical Ethics 4(1): 44-49.
7. Beecher, H. 1966. Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine 274(24): 1354-1360.
8. Bortolotti, L., and B. Heinrichs. 2007. Delimiting the concept of research: An ethical perspective. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28(3): 157-179.
9. Casserat D., J. Karlawish, and J. Sugarman. 2000. Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research. Journal of the American Medical Association 283: 2275ff.
10. Cave, E., and C. Nichols. 2007. Clinical audit and reform of the UK Research Ethics Review System. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28(3): 181-203.
11. Committee on Publication Ethics. 2006. Code of conduct for editors of biomedical journals. Last revision 2006. Available at http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/guidelines/code
12. Corbie-Smith, G., S. Thomas, M. Williams, and S. Moody-Ayers. 1999. Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. Journal of General Internal Medicine 14(9): 537-546.
13. Dawson, A. 2004. What should we do about it? Implications of the empirical evidence in relation to comprehension and acceptability of randomisation. In Engaging the world: The use of empirical research in bioethics and the regulation of biotechnology, eds. S. Holm and M. Jonas, 41-52. Netherlands: IOS Press.
14. Dawson, A. 2009. The normative status of the requirement to gain an informed consent in clinical trials: Comprehension, obligations and empirical evidence. In The limits of consent: A socio-legal approach to human subject research in medicine, eds. O. Corriganet al.99-114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Department of Health 2005. Research governance framework for health and social care, 2nd ed. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod consum dh/idcplg?IdcService=SS GET PAGE&ssDocName=DH 4108962
16. Dyer, S., and D. Demeritt. 2009. Un-ethical review? Why it is wrong to apply the medical model of research governance to human geography. Progress in Human Geography 33(1): 46-64.
17. Economic and Social Research Council. 2005. ESRC research ethics framework. Available at: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ ESRCInfoCentreImages/ESRC Re Ethics Frame tcm6-11291.pdf
18. Elliott, L., and D. Hunter. 2008. The experiences of ethics committee members: Contradictions between individuals and committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 489-494.
19. Emanuel, E. 2004. Ending concerns about undue inducement. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32: 100-105.
20. Featherstone K., and J. Donovan. 2002. 'Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it?' The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Social Science and Medicine 55: 709-719.
21. Fitzgerald, H. 2005. Punctuated equilibrium, moral panics and the ethics review process. Journal of Academic Ethics 2(4): 315-338.
22. Freedman, B. 1987. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine 317(3): 141-145.
23. Hansson, S. 2007. Risk. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2007 edition), ed. E. N. Zalta. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2007/entries/risk
24. Hazelgrove, J. 2002. The old faith and the new science: The Nuremberg Code and human experimentation ethics in Britain, 1946-73. Social History of Medicine 15(1): 109-135.
25. Hermansson, H., and S. Hansson. 2007. A three party model tool for ethical risk analysis. Risk Management 9(3): 129-144.
26. Holm, S. 2007. A rose by any other name. Is the research/nonresearch distinction still important and relevant? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28(3): 153-155.
27. Holm, S., and L. Bortolotti. 2007. Large scale surveys for policy formation and research-A study in inconsistency. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28(3): 205-220.
28. Humphreys, L. 1975. Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. Aldine: New York.
29. Hunter, D. 2007. Proportional ethical review and the identification of ethical issues. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 241-245.
30. Martin, R. 2005. Undue inducement in clinical research. Lancet 366(9482): 275-276.
31. Milgram, S.1963.Behavioralstudyofobedience JournalofAbnormal and Social Psychology 67: 371-378.
32. Milgram, S. 1974. Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row
33. Mulgan, T. 1999. The place of the dead in liberal political philosophy. Journal of Political Philosophy 7(1): 52-70.
34. National Health and Medical Research Council. 2003. When does quality assurance in health care require independent ethical review? Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council.
35. National Ethics Advisory Committee. 2003. ethical review of observational research, audit and related activities. Available at: www.neac.health.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagescm/519/$File/ EthicalReviewObservationalResearch.pdf
36. Office for Human Research Protection. 2009. International compilation of human subject research protections, coord. E. Bartlett, International Activities Program, Office for Human Research Protection, Washington, DC, June. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ ohrp/international/HSPCompilation.pdf
37. Pappworth, M. 1962. Human guinea pigs: A warning. Twentieth Century 171: 67-75.
38. Pappworth, M. 1967. Human guinea pigs: Experimentation on man. Boston: Beacon Press.
39. Savulescu, J. 2001. Harm, ethics committees and the gene therapy death. Journal of Medical Ethics 27: 148-150.
40. Schüklenk, U. 2005. Introduction to research ethics. Developing World Bioethics 5(1): 1-13.
41. Smith R. 1992. Audit and Research. British Medical Journal 305: 905.
42. Snowdon, C., J. Garcia, and D. Elbourne. 1997. Making sense of randomisation; Responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Social Science and Medicine 45: 1337-1355.
43. Stewart, P. M., A. Stears, J. Tomlinson, et al. 2008. Regulation-The real threat to clinical research. British Medical Journal 337: a1732.
44. Sullivan, R. 2008. The good, the bad, and the ugly: Effect of regulations on cancer research. Lancet Oncology 9(1): 2-3.
45. Suntharalingam, G., M. Perry, S. Ward, et al. 2006. Cytokine storm in a phase 1 trial of the anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412. New England Journal of Medicine 355(10): 1018-1028.
46. Thaler, R., and C. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
47. Van Den Hoonaard, W. 2001. Is research-ethics review a moral panic? Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 38: 19-36.
48. Wade, D. 2005. Ethics, audit and all shades of grey. British Medical Journal 330: 468.
49. Warlow, C. 2005. Over-regulation of clinical research: A threat to public health. Clinical Medicine 5(1): 33-38.
50. Wilkinson, M., and A. Moore. 1997. Inducements in research. Bioethics 11(5): 373-389.
51. Wilkinson, M., and A. Moore. 1999. Inducements revisited. Bioethics 13(2): 114-130.
52. Wolff, J. 2007. What is the value of preventing a fatality? In Risk: Philosophical perspectives, ed. T. Lewens, 54-67. London: Routledge.
53. Wolff, J., and A. de-Shalit. 2007. Disadvantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54. World Medical Association. 1975. Declaration of Helsinki: Recommendations guiding medical doctors in biomedical research involving human subjects. Available at: http://ethics.iit.edu/ codes/coe/world.med.assoc.helsinki.1975.html
55. Zimbardo, P. 2007. The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.