The historical foundations of the research-practice distinction in bioethics

Heoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (1):45-56 (2012)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
The distinction between clinical research and clinical practice directs how we partition medicine and biomedical science. Reasons for a sharp distinction date historically to the work of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, especially to its analysis of the “boundaries” between research and practice in the Belmont Report (1978). Belmont presents a segregation model of the research-practice distinction, according to which research and practice form conceptually exclusive sets of activities and interventions. This model is still the standard in federal regulations today. However, the Commission’s deliberations and conclusions about the boundaries are more complicated, nuanced, and instructive than has generally been appreciated. The National Commission did not conclude that practice needs no oversight comparable to the regulation of research. It debated the matter and inclined to the view that the oversight of practice needed to be upgraded, though the Commission stopped short of proposing new regulations for its oversight, largely for prudential political reasons.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BEATHF
Upload history
Archival date: 2013-07-02
View other versions
Added to PP index
2013-07-02

Total views
683 ( #8,792 of 65,545 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
70 ( #10,825 of 65,545 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.