American Journal of Bioethics 11 (5):5-9 (2011)

Authors
Lisa Eckenwiler
George Mason University
Abstract
Biomedical and behavioral research may affect strongly held social values and thereby create significant controversy over whether such research should be permitted in the first place. Institutional review boards responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of participants in research are sometimes faced with review of protocols that have significant implications for social policy and the potential for negative social consequences. Although IRB members often raise concerns about potential long-term social implications in protocol review, federal regulations strongly discourage IRBs from considering them in their decisions. Yet IRBs often do consider the social implications of research protocols and sometimes create significant delays in initiating or even prevent such research. The social implications of research are important topics for public scrutiny and professional discussion. This article examines the reasons that the federal regulations preclude IRBs from assessing the social risks of research, and examines alternative approaches that have been used with varying success by national advisory groups to provide such guidance. The article concludes with recommendations for characteristics of a national advisory group that could successfully fulfill this need, including sustainability, independence, diverse and relevant expertise, and public transparency.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1080/15265161.2011.560337
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,355
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Case Against Perfection.Michael J. Sandel - 2004 - The Atlantic (April):1–11.
RAC Oversight of Gene Transfer Research: A Model Worth Extending?Nancy M. P. King - 2002 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (3):381-389.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Racial Myths and Regulatory Responsibility.Nicolle K. Strand - 2021 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 49 (2):231-240.
An Argument for Fewer Clinical Trials.Kirstin Borgerson - 2016 - Hastings Center Report 46 (6):25-35.

View all 15 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Autonomy and Long-Term Care.George J. Agich - 1993 - Oxford University Press.
Understanding Risks and Benefits in Research on Reproductive Genetic Technologies.Janet Malek - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):339 – 358.
Crossing a Moral Line: Long-Term Preventive Detention in the War on Terror.Alec Walen - 2008 - Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 28 (3/4):15-21.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-05-01

Total views
30 ( #383,442 of 2,519,576 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #407,153 of 2,519,576 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes