Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Journalists, district attorneys and researchers: why IRBs should get in the middle.Anna H. Chodos & Sei J. Lee - 2015 - BMC Medical Ethics 16 (1):19.
    Federal regulations in the United States have shaped Institutional Review Boards to focus on protecting individual human subjects. Health services research studies focusing on healthcare institutions such as hospitals or clinics do not have individual human subjects. Since U.S. federal regulations are silent on what type of review, if any, these studies require, different IRBs may approach similar studies differently, resulting in undesirable variation in the review of studies focusing on healthcare institutions. Further, although these studies do not focus on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Enhancing ethics review of social and behavioral research: developing a review template in Ethiopia.Liya Wassie, Senkenesh Gebre-Mariam, Geremew Tarekegne & Stuart Rennie - 2019 - Research Ethics 15 (3-4):1-23.
    Background:Africa is increasingly becoming an important region for health research, mainly due to its heavy burden of disease, socioeconomic challenges, and inadequate health facilities. Regulatory...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Tangling the Web: Deception in Online Research.Jenny Y. Wang & Elizabeth A. Kitsis - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (11):59-61.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Forgoing Debriefing in Deceptive Research: Is It Ever Ethical?Roseanna Sommers & Franklin G. Miller - 2013 - Ethics and Behavior 23 (2):98-116.
    The use of deception in research is generally permitted so long as participants are debriefed at the conclusion of their participation. Several authoritative research ethics guidelines allow investigators to omit debriefing under certain circumstances, however. Here we examine various justifications for forgoing debriefing in deceptive research, including concerns about subject pool contamination, the risk that revealing the deception will be harmful or distressing to participants, and issues of practicability. We conclude that, contrary to current practice, omitting debriefing is ethically acceptable (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Ethics and Phishing Experiments.David B. Resnik & Peter R. Finn - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (4):1241-1252.
    Phishing is a fraudulent form of email that solicits personal or financial information from the recipient, such as a password, username, or social security or bank account number. The scammer may use the illicitly obtained information to steal the victim’s money or identity or sell the information to another party. The direct costs of phishing on consumers are exceptionally high and have risen substantially over the past 12 years. Phishing experiments that simulate real world conditions can provide cybersecurity experts with (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Use of Deception in Public Health Behavioral Intervention Trials: A Case Study of Three Online Alcohol Trials.Jim McCambridge, Kypros Kypri, Preben Bendtsen & John Porter - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (11):39-47.
    Some public health behavioral intervention research studies involve deception. A methodological imperative to minimize bias can be in conflict with the ethical principle of informed consent. As a case study, we examine the specific forms of deception used in three online randomized controlled trials evaluating brief alcohol interventions. We elaborate our own decision making about the use of deception in these trials, and present our ongoing findings and uncertainties. We discuss the value of the approach of pragmatism for examining these (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations