How not to argue against mandatory ethics review
There is considerable controversy about the mandatory ethics review of research. This paper engages with the arguments offered by Murray Dyck and Gary Allen against mandatory review, namely, that this regulation fails to reach the standards that research ethics committees apply to research since it...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2013
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2013, Volume: 39, Issue: 8, Pages: 521-524 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000naa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1816101656 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20220908053103.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220908s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1136/medethics-2012-101074 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1816101656 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1816101656 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hunter, David |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a How not to argue against mandatory ethics review |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2013 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a There is considerable controversy about the mandatory ethics review of research. This paper engages with the arguments offered by Murray Dyck and Gary Allen against mandatory review, namely, that this regulation fails to reach the standards that research ethics committees apply to research since it is harmful to the ethics of researchers, has little positive evidence base, leads to significant harms (through delaying valuable research) and distorts the nature of research. As these are commonplace arguments offered by researchers against regulation it is useful to assess their strength and the conclusion that they are taken to support, namely, that we ought to move back to a system of trust in researchers without compulsory regulation. Unfortunately, these arguments are at best weak and to some degree come into conflict in terms of supporting the desired conclusion. | ||
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of medical ethics |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975 |g 39(2013), 8, Seite 521-524 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)323607802 |w (DE-600)2026397-1 |w (DE-576)260773972 |x 1473-4257 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:39 |g year:2013 |g number:8 |g pages:521-524 |
| 856 | |3 Volltext |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/43282809 |x JSTOR | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-101074 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/8/521 |x Verlag |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4185553455 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1816101656 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20220908053103 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#AD29689A51748890B1E8FF7465A579B2291BAD4A | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 866 |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/43282809 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| OAS | |a 1 |b inherited from superior work | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||