Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Canada’s new ethical guidelines for research with humans: A critique and comparison with the United States.J. Millum - 2012 - Canadian Medical Association Journal 184:657-61.
    Canada’s Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans, first published in 1998, has recently been updated.1 The US Department of Health and Human Services has just issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would substantially change the 20-year-old Common Rule governing most federally funded research involving human participants.2 A comparison of the two countries’ systems for protecting human research participants is therefore timely. This analysis situates the Canadian system in an international context, with particular attention to its (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Reducing Regulatory Burdens on Research with Human Subjects: A Case Study of the Transition to the Final Common Rule at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Medical Campus.Fanny K. Ennever - 2018 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 46 (1):164-179.
    Boston Medical Center/Boston University Medical Campus recently reduced certain requirements for human subjects research where this could be done without adversely affecting the rights and welfare of participants, in anticipation of changes in the Final Common Rule. Modifications affected exempt and expedited categories, approval periods, ceding review, Quality Improvement/Quality Assessment activities, and some requirements for pregnant women, prisoners, and children. This case study may assist other institutions in responding to the Final Common Rule.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Case against Ethics Review in the Social Sciences.Zachary M. Schrag - 2011 - Research Ethics 7 (4):120-131.
    For decades, scholars in the social sciences and humanities have questioned the appropriateness and utility of prior review of their research by human subjects' ethics committees. This essay seeks to organize thematically some of their published complaints and to serve as a brief restatement of the major critiques of ethics review. In particular, it argues that 1) ethics committees impose silly restrictions, 2) ethics review is a solution in search of a problem, 3) ethics committees lack expertise, 4) ethics committees (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 citations  
  • A Proposed Process for Reliably Updating the Common Rule.Benjamin E. Berkman, David Wendler, Haley K. Sullivan & Christine Grady - 2017 - American Journal of Bioethics 17 (7):8-14.
    The recent Common Rule revision process took almost a decade and the resulting changes are fairly modest, particularly when compared to the ambitious ideas proposed in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking. Furthermore, the revision process did not even attempt to tackle any of the Common Rule subparts pertaining to vulnerable populations where commentators think the rules unduly restrict important research. We believe that this was a missed opportunity to make desirable changes, and that given (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Enhanced REC collaborative review through videoconferencing.Waddell Richard, Bukini Daima, Aboud Muhsin, Adams Susan, Lyamuya Eligius, Masalu Joyce, Bankert Elizabeth & Wettemann Lorri - 2016 - South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 9 (2):84-87.
    As international collaborative health research activities increase, building research ethics committees infrastructure and capacity in lowand middle-income countries for efficient and thorough review of research protocols becomes more critical, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. International investigators may face multiple challenges when conducting research in these settings, an important one being the length of time involved in securing REC review and approval. We discuss an approach to the problem that involved organisation of ‘rapid review’ REC sub-committees who met via video-conference for collaborative (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark