David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Behavior 14 (4):351 – 368 (2004)
It is not unusual for researchers to complain about institutional review board (IRB) oversight, but social scientists have a unique set of objections to the work of ethics committees. In an effort to better understand the problems associated with ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBES) research, this article examines 3 different aspects of research ethics committees: (a) the composition of review boards; (b) the guidelines used by these boards to review SBES - and in particular, behavioral health - research; and (c) the actual deliberations of IRBs. The article concludes with recommendations for changes in the review process and with suggestions for filling the gaps in knowledge about the way IRBs work.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
Louis C. Charland (1998). Appreciation and Emotion: Theoretical Reflections on the Macarthur Treatment Competence Study. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8 (4):359-376.
Citations of this work BETA
Robert Klitzman (2008). Views of the Process and Content of Ethical Reviews of Hiv Vaccine Trials Among Members of Us Institutional Review Boards and South African Research Ethics Committees. Developing World Bioethics 8 (3):207-218.
Patricia Keith-Spiegel & Gerald P. Koocher (2005). The IRB Paradox: Could the Protectors Also Encourage Deceit? Ethics and Behavior 15 (4):339 – 349.
Debra A. DeBruin (2004). Looking Beyond the Limitations of “Vulnerability”: Reforming Safeguards in Research. American Journal of Bioethics 4 (3):76-78.
Similar books and articles
Dominique Rivière (2011). Looking From the Outside/In: Re-Thinking Research Ethics Review. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 9 (3):193-204.
Maureen H. Fitzgerald, Paul A. Phillips & Elisa Yule (2006). The Research Ethics Review Process and Ethics Review Narratives. Ethics and Behavior 16 (4):377 – 395.
Edward J. Hackett (2002). Four Observations About “Six Domains of Research Ethics”. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2):211-214.
Dennis John Mazur (2007). Evaluating the Science and Ethics of Research on Humans: A Guide for Irb Members. Johns Hopkins University Press.
James M. DuBois (2004). Is Compliance a Professional Virtue of Researchers? Reflections on Promoting the Responsible Conduct of Research. Ethics and Behavior 14 (4):383 – 395.
Jordan H. Stein (2009). Organizational Justice and Behavioral Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 19 (2):193-233.
Mark H. Ashcraft & Jeremy A. Krause (2007). Social and Behavioral Researchers' Experiences with Their Irbs. Ethics and Behavior 17 (1):1 – 17.
Katinka de Wet (2010). The Importance of Ethical Appraisal in Social Science Research: Reviewing a Faculty of Humanities' Research Ethics Committee. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (4):301-314.
Cheryl Cox Macpherson (1999). Research Ethics Committees: A Regional Approach. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (2):161-179.
Michael Owen (2006). Conflict and Convergence: The Ethics Review of Action Research. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 4 (1-4):61-75.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #389,293 of 1,796,251 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #284,614 of 1,796,251 )
How can I increase my downloads?