A comparative analysis of biomedical research ethics regulation systems in Europe and Latin America with regard to the protection of human subjects
E. Lamas, M. Ferrer, A. Molina, R. Salinas, A. Hevia, A. Bota, D. Feinholz, M. Fuchs, R. Schramm, J. -C. Tealdi & S. Zorrilla
Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (12):750-753 (2010)
|Abstract||The European project European and Latin American Systems of Ethics Regulation of Biomedical Research Project (EULABOR) has carried out the first comparative analysis of ethics regulation systems for biomedical research in seven countries in Europe and Latin America, evaluating their roles in the protection of human subjects. We developed a conceptual and methodological framework defining ‘ethics regulation system for biomedical research’ as a set of actors, institutions, codes and laws involved in overseeing the ethics of biomedical research on humans. This framework allowed us to develop comprehensive national reports by conducting semi-structured interviews to key informants. These reports were summarised and analysed in a comparative analysis. The study showed that the regulatory framework for clinical research in these countries differ in scope. It showed that despite the different political contexts, actors involved and motivations for creating the regulation, in most of the studied countries it was the government who took the lead in setting up the system. The study also showed that Europe and Latin America are similar regarding national bodies and research ethics committees, but the Brazilian system has strong and noteworthy specificities|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Charles Weijer, The Ethical Analysis of Risks and Potential Benefits in Human Subjects Research: History, Theory, and Implications for U.S. Regulation.
M. Quigley (2007). Non-Human Primates: The Appropriate Subjects of Biomedical Research? Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (11):655-658.
Gedeon Josua Rossouw (2011). A Global Comparative Analysis of the Global Survey of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 104 (S1):93-101.
Michelle N. Meyer (2010). Against One-Size-Fits-All Research Ethics. Hastings Center Report 40 (5):10-11.
R. R. Kishore (2006). Biomedical Research and Mining of the Poor: The Need for Their Exclusion. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):175-183.
Adil E. Shamoo (2009). Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford University Press.
David B. Resnick (1999). Privatized Biomedical Research, Public Fears, and the Hazards of Government Regulation: Lessons From Stem Cell Research. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 7 (3):273-287.
Inmaculada de Melo-martín (2011). Human Dignity in International Policy Documents: A Useful Criterion for Public Policy? Bioethics 25 (1):37-45.
Debora Diniz (2008). Research Ethics in Social Sciences: The Severina's Story Documentary. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (2):23 - 35.
Paul M. McNeill (1993). The Ethics and Politics of Human Experimentation. Cambridge University Press.
Sara Svensson & Sven Ove Hansson (2007). Protecting People in Research: A Comparison Between Biomedical and Traffic Research. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (1):99-115.
F. William Dommel & Duane Alexander (1997). The Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of the Council of Europe. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7 (3):259-276.
Michael McDonald & Susan Cox (2009). Moving Toward Evidence-Based Human Participant Protection. Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):1-16.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-09-13
Total downloads1 ( #291,386 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?