Research in wonderland: Does "minimal risk" mean whatever an institutional review board says it means?
American Journal of Bioethics 7 (3):11 – 12 (2007)
| Abstract | This Article does not have an abstract | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDiane K. Wagener, Amy K. Sporer, Mary Simmerling, Jennifer L. Flome, Christina An & Susan J. Curry (2004). Human Participants Challenges in Youth-Focused Research: Perspectives and Practices of IRB Administrators. Ethics and Behavior 14 (4):335 – 349.
Dominique Rivière (2011). Looking From the Outside/In: Re-Thinking Research Ethics Review. Journal of Academic Ethics 9 (3):193-204.
Gary Allen (2008). Getting Beyond Form Filling: The Role of Institutional Governance in Human Research Ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (2).
Mark Rice (2011). The Institutional Review Board is an Impediment to Human Research: The Result is More Animal-Based Research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 6 (1):12-.
Carson Strong (2011). Minimal Risk in Research Involving Pregnant Women and Fetuses. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (3):529-538.
Helen M. Sharp & Robert D. Orr (2004). When "Minimal Risk" Research Yields Clinically-Significant Data, Maybe the Risks Aren't So Minimal. American Journal of Bioethics 4 (2):32-36.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads3 ( #201,730 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
