Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Enhancing social value considerations in prioritising publicly funded biomedical research: the vital role of peer review.Katherine W. Saylor & Steven Joffe - 2024 - Journal of Medical Ethics 50 (4):253-257.
    The main goal of publicly funded biomedical research is to generate social value through the creation and application of knowledge that can improve the well-being of current and future people. Prioritising research with the greatest potential social value is crucial for good stewardship of limited public resources and ensuring ethical involvement of research participants. At the National Institutes of Health (NIH), peer reviewers hold the expertise and responsibility for social value assessment and resulting prioritisation at the project level. However, previous (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • For the Common Good: Philosophical Foundations of Research Ethics.Alex John London - 2021 - New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
    The foundations of research ethics are riven with fault lines emanating from a fear that if research is too closely connected to weighty social purposes an imperative to advance the common good through research will justify abrogating the rights and welfare of study participants. The result is an impoverished conception of the nature of research, an incomplete focus on actors who bear important moral responsibilities, and a system of ethics and oversight highly attuned to the dangers of research but largely (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Four Faces of Fair Subject Selection.Katherine Witte Saylor & Douglas MacKay - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (2):5-19.
    Although the principle of fair subject selection is a widely recognized requirement of ethical clinical research, it often yields conflicting imperatives, thus raising major ethical dilemmas regarding participant selection. In this paper, we diagnose the source of this problem, arguing that the principle of fair subject selection is best understood as a bundle of four distinct sub-principles, each with normative force and each yielding distinct imperatives: (1) fair inclusion; (2) fair burden sharing; (3) fair opportunity; and (4) fair distribution of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • Practical Problems Related to Health Research Funding Decisions.David B. Resnik - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (11):21-22.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Priority Setting Is More Than Resource Allocation: Reflecting on the Content of Funders’ Duties and Their Implications for Current Practice.Bridget Pratt & Adnan A. Hyder - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (11):27-30.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Allocation of scarce biospecimens for use in research.Leah Pierson, Sophia Gibert, Benjamin Berkman, Marion Danis & Joseph Millum - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (11):740-743.
    Hundreds of millions of rare biospecimens are stored in laboratories and biobanks around the world. Often, the researchers who possess these specimens do not plan to use them, while other researchers limit the scope of their work because they cannot acquire biospecimens that meet their needs. This situation raises an important and underexplored question: how should scientists allocate biospecimens that they do not intend to use? We argue that allocators should aim to maximise the social value of the research enterprise (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Should health research funding be proportional to the burden of disease?Joseph Millum - 2023 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 22 (1):76-99.
    Public funders of health research have been widely criticized on the grounds that their allocations of funding for disease-specific research do not reflect the relative burdens imposed by different diseases. For example, the US National Institutes of Health spends a much greater fraction of its budget on HIV/aids research and a much smaller fraction on migraine research than their relative contribution to the US burden of disease would suggest. Implicit in this criticism is a normative claim: Insofar as the scientific (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Who Is Responsible for Promoting Equity in Rare Disease Research?Matthew S. McCoy - 2023 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (7):83-85.
    Stories of rare disease advocacy can elicit strong but ambivalent responses. It’s moving to read about the heroic efforts of parents “becoming drug developers to find a cure for their children’s ra...
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Health Research Priority Setting: State Obligations and the Human Right to Science.Sebastian Porsdam Mann & Maximillian M. Schmid - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (11):33-35.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Health Research Priority Setting: A Duty to Maximize Social Value?Douglas MacKay - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (11):25-26.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Government Policy Experiments and the Ethics of Randomization.Douglas MacKay - 2020 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 48 (4):319-352.
    Governments are increasingly using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate policy interventions. RCTs are often understood to provide the highest quality evidence regarding the causal efficacy of an intervention. While randomization plays an essential epistemic role in the context of policy RCTs however, it also plays an important distributive role. By randomly assigning participants to either the intervention or control arm of an RCT, people are subject to different policies and so, often, to different types and levels of benefits. In (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Pfizer’s Corporate Citizenship.Nancy S. Jecker - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (11):18-20.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Is There a Business Case for Constitutive Duties of For-Profit Research Funders?Daniel J. Hurst - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (11):35-37.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Acquired Duties for Ethical Research With American Indian/Alaska Native Populations: An Application of Pierson and Millum’s Framework.Ibrahim Garba, Leila Barraza & Elizabeth Hall-Lipsy - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (11):40-42.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Should institutions fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research?Cornelius Ewuoso, Benjamin Berkman, Ambroise Wonkam & Jantina de Vries - forthcoming - Journal of Medical Ethics.
    The article argues the thesis that institutions have a prima facie obligation to fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research conducted on the African continent by drawing arguments from an underexplored Afro-communitarian view of distributive justice and rights of researchers to be aided. Whilst some studies have explored how institutions have a duty to support return as a form of ancillary care or additional foreseeable service in research by mostly appealing to dominant principles and theories in the Global (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Universal Funder Responsibilities That Advance Social Value.Barbara E. Bierer, David H. Strauss, Sarah A. White & Deborah A. Zarin - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (11):30-32.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Conceptual, Structural, and Practical Challenges to Ethical Allocation of Research Funds.Rebecca Dresser - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (11):23-24.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Public Health Disaster-Related Research: A Solidaristic Ethical Prism for Understanding Funders’ Duties.Michael O. S. Afolabi & Stephen O. Sodeke - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (11):37-39.
    Funding broadly connotes the notion of an institution and/or institutions making money and other resources available to individual researchers and organizations to accomplish specific projects. Whi...
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation