2003
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-003-1666-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

US and UK policies governing research with humans

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This regulation differs in other countries. For example, in the UK, the chair of the central ethics committee initially conducts the continuing review of a study and may decide, based on that review, that it does not require a full-board review (e.g., there have been no protocol amendments and a Data and Safety Monitoring Committee has indicated that there were no safety concerns) [19]. …”
Section: Problem 1: Continuing Reviews and Equivalent Protectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This regulation differs in other countries. For example, in the UK, the chair of the central ethics committee initially conducts the continuing review of a study and may decide, based on that review, that it does not require a full-board review (e.g., there have been no protocol amendments and a Data and Safety Monitoring Committee has indicated that there were no safety concerns) [19]. …”
Section: Problem 1: Continuing Reviews and Equivalent Protectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans with other countries implementing similar but not identical regulatory policies 6,7,8 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…
and where the medical model of disability and an interventionist research trend has a strong presence. These governance bodies are part of a self-regulating professional culture that has been passive regarding the rights of research participants and whose values about what is appropriate research, who should bear the risks in research, and whether the risks are morally acceptable continue to clash with ethical codes (Sharav, 2003;Waring & Lemmens, 2004;Weijer, 2002).IRBs operate behind closed institutional doors and often report to the research office that promotes research and seeks funding for it-an institutional conflict of interest (Maschke, 2003). How is it possible that a profession with a tarnished human rights record became the ethical gatekeepers in research?
…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…IRBs operate behind closed institutional doors and often report to the research office that promotes research and seeks funding for it-an institutional conflict of interest (Maschke, 2003). How is it possible that a profession with a tarnished human rights record became the ethical gatekeepers in research?…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%