Reasonable disagreement and the justification of pre-emptive ethics governance in social research: a response to Hammersley

Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (10):719-720 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this response, we first tackle what we take to be the core disagreement between ourselves and Hammersley, namely the justification for our model of social research ethics governance. We then consider what follows from our defence of governance for ethics review and show how these claims attend to the specific concerns outlined by Hammersley.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Epistemic Foundations of Political Liberalism.Fabienne Peter - 2013 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (5):598-620.
Disagreement and Responses to Climate Change.Graham Long - 2011 - Environmental Values 20 (4):503-525.
Justifications and Excuses.Marcia Baron - 2004 - Ohio St. J. Crim. L 2:387.
Waldron on law and disagreement.Thomas Christiano - 2000 - Law and Philosophy 19 (4):513-543.
Getting the justification for research ethics review right.Michael Dunn - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):527-528.
Disagreement.Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.) - 2010 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Public justification and the limits of state action.Andrew Lister - 2010 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 9 (2):151-175.
Disagreement.Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.) - 2010 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-06-27

Downloads
13 (#886,512)

6 months
4 (#319,344)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?