Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Do Researchers Have an Obligation to Actively Look for Genetic Incidental Findings?”

&
American Journal of Bioethics 13 (5):W10-W11 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

No abstract

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265161.2013.781470

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,923

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Do Researchers Have an Obligation to Actively Look for Genetic Incidental Findings?Catherine Gliwa & Benjamin E. Berkman - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (2):32-42.
A Perspective From Clinical Providers and Patients: Researchers’ Duty to Actively Look for Genetic Incidental Findings.Kathryn M. Ross & Marian Reiff - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (2):56-58.
Genetic Enhancement Revisited: Response to Open Peer Commentaries.Ruiping Fan - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (4):6-8.
The Right to Know Your Genetic Parents: From Open-Identity Gamete Donation to Routine Paternity Testing.An Ravelingien & Guido Pennings - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (5):33-41.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants”: Defining Clinical Utility And Revisiting the Role of Relationships.Vardit Ravitsky & Benjamin S. Wilfond - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (6):W10-W12.
Incidental Findings and Ancillary-Care Obligations.Henry S. Richardson - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (2):256-270.
An Unbiased Response to the Open Peer Commentaries on “Does Consent Bias Research?”.Mark A. Rothstein & Abigail B. Shoben - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (4):W1 - W4.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Genomic Inheritances: Disclosing Individual Research Results From Whole-Exome Sequencing to Deceased Participants' Relatives”.Sara Chandros Hull, Ben Chan, Leslie G. Biesecker & Benjamin E. Berkman - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics 12 (12):W9-W10.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Case for Evidence-Based Rulemaking”.Benjamin Sachs - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):1-3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Coming Era of Nanomedicine”.Fritz Allhoff - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (10):1-2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Broader View of Justice”.Nancy S. Jecker - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):1-2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Decisional Analysis of Consent”.Jonathan Baron - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W51-W53.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “An Open Letter to Institutional Review Boards Considering Northfield Laboratories' PolyHeme® Trial ”: The Emergency Exception and Unproven/Unsatisfactory Treatment.Ken Kipnis, Nancy M. P. King & Robert M. Nelson - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W49-W50.
Response to open Peer commentaries on “why treat the wounded?”.Michael L. Gross - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (2):W1 – W3.
Response to open Peer commentaries on “must research participants understand randomization?”.David Wendler - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):W1 – W2.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-26

Downloads
19 (#821,503)

6 months
10 (#306,562)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Duty to Rescue in Genomic Research.Michael Ulrich - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (2):50-51.
The Nirvana Fallacy and the Return of Results.Leslie G. Biesecker - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (2):43-44.

View all 9 references / Add more references