Graduate studies at Western
Nursing Ethics 18 (5):640-650 (2011)
|Abstract||History has demonstrated the necessity of protecting research participants. Research ethics are based on a concept of asymmetry of power, viewing the researcher as powerful and potentially dangerous and establishing ethics committees as external agencies in the field of research. We argue in favour of expanding this perspective on relationships of power to encompass the ethics committees as one among several actors that exert power and that act in a relational interplay with researchers and participants. We employ Michel Foucault’s ideas of power as an omnipresent force which is dynamic and unstable, as well as the notion that knowledge and power are inextricably intertwined. The article discusses how research ethics committees may affect academic freedom. In addition it is pointed out that research participants could be harmed — not only by unfortunate research practices, but also by being subjected to the protective efforts of ethics monitoring bodies|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Marion Danis (ed.) (2012). Clinical Research Consultation: A Casebook. Oxford University Press.
Stephanie R. Solomon (2013). Protecting and Respecting the Vulnerable: Existing Regulations or Further Protections? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (1):17-28.
Thomas De Koninck (2009). Protecting Human Dignity in Research Involving Humans. Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):17-25.
David Hunter, Tis but a Scratch: The Human Tissue Act and the Use of Tissue for Research, Issues for Research Ethics Committees.
David Kennamer (2005). What Journalists and Researchers Have in Common About Ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 20 (1):77 – 89.
Margaret Brazier & Mary Lobjoit (eds.) (1991). Protecting the Vulnerable: Autonomy and Consent in Health Care. Routledge.
Marek Czarkowski (2006). The Protection of Patients' Rights in Clinical Trials. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):131-138.
E. Cave (2002). New Governance Arrangements for Research Ethics Committees: Is Facilitating Research Achieved at the Cost of Participants' Interest. Journal of Medical Ethics 28 (5):318-321.
Dennis John Mazur (2007). Evaluating the Science and Ethics of Research on Humans: A Guide for Irb Members. Johns Hopkins University Press.
E. Roche, R. King, H. M. Mohan, B. Gavin & F. McNicholas (2013). Payment of Research Participants: Current Practice and Policies of Irish Research Ethics Committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (9):591-593.
Christian Simon & Maghboeba Mosavel (2010). Exploratory Health Disparities Research: The Need to Provide a Tangible Benefit to Vulnerable Respondents. Ethics and Behavior 20 (1):1-9.
David Shaw (2011). The Ethics Committee as Ghost Author. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (12):706-706.
Rebecca Dresser (2009). First-in-Human Trial Participants: Not a Vulnerable Population, but Vulnerable Nonetheless. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37 (1):38-50.
Sara Ashencaen Crabtree (forthcoming). Research Ethics and the Moral Enterprise of Ethnography: Conjunctions and Contradictions. Ethics and Social Welfare:1-20.
Added to index2011-09-07
Total downloads11 ( #107,498 of 739,395 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,287 of 739,395 )
How can I increase my downloads?