Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Social Value Requirement in Research: From the Transactional to the Basic Structure Model of Stakeholder Obligations.Danielle M. Wenner - 2018 - Hastings Center Report 48 (6):25-32.
    It has long been taken for granted that clinical research involving human subjects is ethical only if it holds out the prospect of producing socially valuable knowledge. Recently, this social value requirement has come under scrutiny, with prominent ethicists arguing that the social value requirement cannot be substantiated as an ethical limit on clinical research, and others attempting to offer new support. In this paper, I argue that both criticisms and existing defenses of the social value requirement are predicated on (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Clinical trials and scid row: The ethics of phase 1 trials in the developing world.Jonathan Kimmelman - 2007 - Developing World Bioethics 7 (3):128–135.
    ABSTRACTRelatively little has been written about the ethics of conducting early phase clinical trials involving subjects from the developing world. Below, I analyze ethical issues surrounding one of gene transfer’s most widely praised studies conducted to date: in this study, Italian investigators recruited two subjects from the developing world who were ineligible for standard of care because of economic considerations. Though the study seems to have rendered a cure in these two subjects, it does not appear to have complied with (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Assessing risk/benefit for trials using preclinical evidence: a proposal.Jonathan Kimmelman & Valerie Henderson - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (1):50-53.
  • Balancing Uncertain Risks and Benefits in Human Subjects Research.Richard Barke - 2009 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 34 (3):337-364.
    Composed of scientific and technical experts and lay members, thousands of research ethics committees—Institutional Review Boards in the United States—must identify and assess the potential risks to human research subjects, and balance those risks against the potential benefits of the research. IRBs handle risk and its uncertainty by adopting a version of the precautionary principle. To assess scientific merit, IRBs use a tacit ``sanguinity principle,'' which treats uncertainty as inevitable, even desirable, in scientific progress. In balancing human subjects risks and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations