1.  9
    Contesting the Science/Ethics Distinction in the Review of Clinical Research.A. J. Dawson & S. M. Yentis - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (3):165-167.
    Recent policy in relation to clinical research proposals in the UK has distinguished between two types of review: scientific and ethical. This distinction has been formally enshrined in the recent changes to research ethics committee structure and operating procedures, introduced as the UK response to the EU Directive on clinical trials. Recent reviews and recommendations have confirmed the place of the distinction and the separate review processes. However, serious reservations can be mounted about the science/ethics distinction and the policy of (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  2.  55
    Medical Studies with 'No Material Ethical Issues' - an Unhelpful, Confusing and Potentially Unethical Suggestion.S. M. Yentis & A. J. Dawson - 2006 - Clinical Ethics 1 (4):234-236.
    Both the recent 'Warner' review of the UK research ethics committee (REC) system and the subsequent consultation document produced by the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) emphasize the need to distinguish 'research' from what might be termed 'non-research'. This is to be determined through a process of filtering or 'triage', the intention being that RECs will avoid considering proposals with 'no material ethical issues'. In this paper we argue that trying to distinguish 'true' research from other projects is (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  3. Is There a Need for Global Health Ethics? For and Against.D. Hunter, A. J. Dawson, S. Benatar & G. Brock - 2011 - In S. R. Benatar & Gillian Brock (eds.), Global Health and Global Health Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
  4.  18
    The Ad Hoc Advisory Group's Proposals for Research Ethics Committees: A Mixture of the Timid, the Revolutionary, and the Bizarre.A. J. Dawson - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (8):435-436.
    The Report of the Ad Hoc Adivisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees has resulted in a strange mixture of the timid, the revolutionary, and the bizarre.The Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees is a curious document.1 The remit of the review was focused on the workings and effectiveness of NHS research ethics committees and the multicentre committees ). The Group was primarily set up in response to a (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   3 citations