- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Psychology, ethics, and research ethics boards
Ethics and Behavior 32 (8):658-673 (2022)
Abstract
Research Ethics Boards (REBs) at universities are chaired and staffed by researchers who serve to enforce codes of ethics by scrutinizing research proposals. Yet there is widespread dissatisfaction with the REB approval process. This article examines the sources of that dissatisfaction, the place for codes of ethics in the conducting of research, the evidence for risk to research participants as the basis for those codes, and the effectiveness of REBs in protecting research participants. We offer suggestions for how REB chairs, members, and researchers can improve the REB approval process so that it is fair and responsive.My notes
Similar books and articles
Reflections on My Experience in Human Research Ethics.K. G. Davey - 2009 - Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):27-31.
Internet research ethics and the institutional review board: current practices and issues.Elizabeth A. Buchanan & Charles M. Ess - 2009 - Acm Sigcas Computers and Society 39 (3):43-49.
Good ethics can sometimes mean better science: Research ethics and the Milgram experiments.Dan McArthur - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):69-79.
Using electronic discussion boards to teach responsible conduct of research.David B. Resnik - 2005 - Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (4):617-630.
MRI Research Proposals Involving Child Subjects: Concerns Hindering Research Ethics Boards from Approving Them and a Checklist to Help Evaluate Them.J. Deborah Shiloff, Bryan Magwood & Krisztina L. Malisza - 2011 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (1):115-129.
Improving the process of research ethics review.Jeffrey Nyeboer & Stacey A. Page - 2017 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 2 (1).
Ethics issues with private research ethics boards: A breakout session at the 2009 ncehr national conference.Jack Corman Francis Rolleston, Paddi O'Hara Serge Gauthier & Rod Schmaltz - forthcoming - Journal of Academic Ethics.
Navigating research ethics in the absence of an ethics review board: The importance of space for sharing.Cécile Giraud, Giuseppe Davide Cioffo, Maïté Kervyn de Lettenhove & Carlos Ramirez Chaves - 2018 - Research Ethics 15 (1):1-17.
Ethics Issues with Private Research Ethics Boards: A Breakout Session at the 2009 NCEHR National Conference. [REVIEW]Francis Rolleston, Jack Corman, Serge Gauthier, Paddi O’Hara & Rod Schmaltz - 2009 - Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):69-73.
Enriching the concept of vulnerability in research ethics: An integrative and functional account.Eric Racine & Dearbhail Bracken‐Roche - 2018 - Bioethics 33 (1):19-34.
Juggling through hoops: Implementing ethics policies in applied language studies. [REVIEW]Janna Fox, Natasha Artemeva, Richard Darville & Devon Woods - 2006 - Journal of Academic Ethics 4 (1-4):77-99.
Ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic research: Where should we go from here'.Raymond De Vries, Debra A. DeBruin & Andrew Goodgame - 2004 - Ethics and Behavior 14 (4):351 – 368.
Canadian Research Ethics Boards, MRI Research Risks, and MRI Risk Classification.Jennifer Marshall & Michael Hadskis - 2009 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 31 (4):9-15.
Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?Murray Dyck & Gary Allen - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):517-520.
Should Epidemiological Studies Be Subject to Ethics Review?Jan Piasecki, Vilius Dranseika & Marcin Waligora - 2018 - Public Health Ethics 11 (2):213-220.
Analytics
Added to PP
2022-04-09
Downloads
14 (#986,446)
6 months
3 (#965,065)
2022-04-09
Downloads
14 (#986,446)
6 months
3 (#965,065)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
References found in this work
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman - 1974 - Science 185 (4157):1124-1131.
The Case against Ethics Review in the Social Sciences.Zachary M. Schrag - 2011 - Research Ethics 7 (4):120-131.
Improving the process of research ethics review.Jeffrey Nyeboer & Stacey A. Page - 2017 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 2 (1).
Should research ethics committees be told how to think?G. M. Sayers - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (1):39-42.
What are the most common reasons for return of ethics submissions? An audit of an Australian health service ethics committee.Caitlin Brandenburg, Sarah Thorning & Carine Ruthenberg - 2021 - Research Ethics 17 (3):346-358.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-64dd777598-zf4z4 uwo