Search results for 'Research Subjects' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Stefan Eriksson (2012). On the Need for Improved Protections of Incapacitated and Non-Benefiting Research Subjects. Bioethics 26 (1):15-21.score: 222.0
    In this article, it is claimed that the protective provisions for adults with impaired decision-making capacity are misguided, insofar as they do not conclusively state whether research on this group should be permitted only as an exception, and as they arbitrarily allow for some groups to benefit from such research while others will not. Moreover, the presumed or former will of the subject is given insufficient weight, and the minimal risk standard does not make sense in this context. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. E. Bjorn, P. Rossel & S. Holm (1999). Can the Written Information to Research Subjects Be Improved?--An Empirical Study. Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (3):263-267.score: 210.0
    OBJECTIVES: To study whether linguistic analysis and changes in information leaflets can improve readability and understanding. DESIGN: Randomised, controlled study. Two information leaflets concerned with trials of drugs for conditions/diseases which are commonly known were modified, and the original was tested against the revised version. SETTING: Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: 235 persons in the relevant age groups. MAIN MEASURES: Readability and understanding of contents. RESULTS: Both readability and understanding of contents was improved: readability with regard to both information leaflets and understanding with (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. R. Macklin (1981). On Paying Money to Research Subjects: 'Due' and 'Undue' Inducements. Irb 3 (5):1-6.score: 210.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Gideon Koren (2003). Healthy Children as Subjects in Pharmaceutical Research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24 (2):149-159.score: 204.0
    Recruitment of healthy children for drugresearch has emerged due in part to several newAmerican laws and policies that have led to asurge in pharmaceutical research involvingchildren-subjects. In this paper, I review theethical and scientific issues and the argumentsin favor and against this new practice.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Lawrence Burns (2008). What is the Scope for the Interpretation of Dignity in Research Involving Human Subjects? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11 (2):191-208.score: 198.0
    Drawing on Lennart Nordenfelt’s distinction between the four distinct senses of dignity, I elucidate the meaning of dignity in the context of research involving human subjects. I acknowledge that different interpretations of the personal senses of dignity may be acceptable in human subject research, but that inherent dignity (Menschenwürde) is not open to interpretation in the same way. In order to map out the grounds for interpreting dignity, I examine the unique application of the principle of respect (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Sami Alsmadi (2008). Marketing Research Ethics: Researcher's Obligations Toward Human Subjects. Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (2):153-160.score: 192.0
    This paper addresses the growing concern over violation of research ethics in marketing, in particular rights of human subjects in fieldwork, notably the right to informed consent; right to privacy and confidentiality; and right not to be deceived or harmed as a result of participation in a research. The paper highlights the interaction of the three main parties involved in most marketing research: the sponsoring organization (client or user), researcher, and participant in the survey, focusing on (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Angela Ballantyne (2008). Benefits to Research Subjects in International Trials: Do They Reduce Exploitation or Increase Undue Inducement? Developing World Bioethics 8 (3):178-191.score: 192.0
    There is an alleged tension between undue inducement and exploitation in research trials. This paper considers claims that increasing the benefits to research subjects enrolled in international, externally-sponsored clinical trials should be avoided on the grounds that it may result in the undue inducement of research subjects. This article contributes to the debate about exploitation versus undue inducement by introducing an analysis of the available empirical research into research participants' motivations and the influence (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Rebecca L. Walker (2006). Human and Animal Subjects of Research: The Moral Significance of Respect Versus Welfare. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4):305-331.score: 192.0
    Human beings with diminished decision-making capacities are usually thought to require greater protections from the potential harms of research than fully autonomous persons. Animal subjects of research receive lesser protections than any human beings regardless of decision-making capacity. Paradoxically, however, it is precisely animals’ lack of some characteristic human capacities that is commonly invoked to justify using them for human purposes. In other words, for humans lesser capacities correspond to greater protections but for animals the opposite is (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Trisha Phillips (2011). Exploitation in Payments to Research Subjects. Bioethics 25 (4):209-219.score: 192.0
    Offering cash payments to research subjects is a common recruiting method but there is significant debate about whether and in what amount such payments are appropriate. This paper is concerned with exploitation and whether there should be a lower limit on the amount researchers can pay their subjects. When subjects participate in research as a way to make money, fairness requires that researchers pay them a fair wage. This call for the establishment of a lower (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Elizabeth H. Bassett & Kate O'Riordan (2002). Ethics of Internet Research: Contesting the Human Subjects Research Model. Ethics and Information Technology 4 (3):233-247.score: 192.0
    The human subjects researchmodel is increasingly invoked in discussions ofethics for Internet research. Here we seek toquestion the widespread application of thismodel, critiquing it through the two themes ofspace and textual form. Drawing on ourexperience of a previous piece ofresearch, we highlightthe implications of re-considering thetextuality of the Internet in addition to thespatial metaphors that are more commonlydeployed to describe Internet activity. Weargue that the use of spatial metaphors indescriptions of the Internet has shaped theadoption of the human (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Joseph B. Walther (2002). Research Ethics in Internet-Enabled Research: Human Subjects Issues and Methodological Myopia. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 4 (3):205-216.score: 192.0
    As Internet resources are usedmore frequently for research on social andpsychological behavior, concerns grow aboutwhether characteristics of such research affecthuman subjects protections. Early efforts toaddress such concerns have done more toidentify potential problems than to evaluatethem or to seek solutions, leaving bodiescharged with human subjects oversight in aquagmire. This article critiques some of theseissues in light of the US Code of FederalRegulations' policies for the Protection ofHuman Subjects, and argues that some of theissues have no (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Amy Bruckman (2002). Studying the Amateur Artist: A Perspective on Disguising Data Collected in Human Subjects Research on the Internet. Ethics and Information Technology 4 (3):217-231.score: 192.0
    In the mid-1990s, the Internet rapidly changedfrom a venue used by a small number ofscientists to a popular phenomena affecting allaspects of life in industrialized nations. Scholars from diverse disciplines have taken aninterest in trying to understand the Internetand Internet users. However, as a variety ofresearchers have noted, guidelines for ethicalresearch on human subjects written before theInternet's growth can be difficult to extend toresearch on Internet users.In this paper, I focus on one ethicalissue: whether and to what extent to (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Professor John R. Williams (2006). The Physician's Role in the Protection of Human Research Subjects. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):5-12.score: 192.0
    Responsibility for the protection of human research subjects is shared by investigators, research ethics committees, sponsors/funders, research institutions, governments and, the focus of this article, physicians who enrol patients in clinical trials. The article describes the general principles of the patient-physician relationship that should regulate the participation of physicians in clinical trials and proposes guidelines for determining when and how such participation should proceed. The guidelines deal with the following stages of the trial: when first considering (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Hans-Peter Graf (2011). Protecting Research Subjects From Prohibited Multi-Participation in Clinical Trials. Research Ethics 7 (4):136-147.score: 186.0
    The protection of human research subjects in clinical studies is regulated by international guidelines and national laws. Research Ethics Committees play an important role here, as they review the documentation for clinical studies under consideration of ethical aspects. This documentation includes an exclusion or wash-out period which designates when study subjects may not have participated in another study or be allowed to take part in a future one within a specified time period. However not all (...) subjects comply with their applicable exclusion period. This prohibited multi-participation in clinical studies is known as ‘research subject tourism,’ ‘clinical study overlapping’, or ‘guinea-pigging’. This practice brings with it additional risks for the research subject and the integrity of the research being conducted. No comprehensive data are available to demonstrate exactly how many research subjects participate in overlapping multiple studies. However, the number of them who ‘travel’ from one study to another seems to be significant. Preventing this practice is a matter of concern for ethics committees, but the responsibility for protecting research subjects in this respect apart from approving the ethics of a wash-out period and recruiting from a specific pool or database of patients is solely that of the investigating physician. But how can the investigating physician be certain that a research subject complies with their exclusion period? An international data bank for research subjects who have participated, or are participating, in clinical studies, is a measure that would serve to prevent prohibited multi-participation in clinical studies and thereby protect the research subject, the investigating physician and their institution. VIP Check, International, which was founded by the author in 1990, is an example of such a data bank. This article examines the existence of prohibited multi-participation in clinical studies, the additional risk this practice of itself poses to the research subjects and the integrity of clinical studies, and how this practice might best be reduce or even eliminated through use of an international data bank of research subjects such as that of VIP Check. (shrink)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Leslie Meltzer Henry (2013). Moral Gridlock: Conceptual Barriers to No‐Fault Compensation for Injured Research Subjects. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41 (2):411-423.score: 180.0
    The federal regulations that govern biomedical research, most notably those enshrined in the Common Rule, express a protectionist ethos aimed at safeguarding subjects of human experimentation from the potential harms of research participation. In at least one critical way, however, the regulations have always fallen short of this promise: if a subject suffers a research-related injury, then neither the investigator nor the sponsor has any legal obligation under the regulations to care for or compensate the subject. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Timothy F. Murphy (2010). Sex, Romance, and Research Subjects: An Ethical Exploration. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (7):30-38.score: 180.0
    Professional standards in medicine and psychology treat concurrent sexual relationships with patients as violations of fiduciary trust, and they sometimes rule out sexual relationships even after a clinical relationship is over. These standards also rule out sex with research subjects who are also patients, but what about nonclinical relationships where there are not always parallels to the standards of clinical medicine? One way to treat sex in nonclinical research relationships is to treat it as sex is treated (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Trisha B. Phillips (2011). A Living Wage for Research Subjects. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (2):243-253.score: 180.0
    Offering cash payments to research subjects is a common recruiting method, but this practice continues to be controversial because of its potential to compromise the protection of human subjects. Federal regulations and guidelines currently allow researchers to pay subjects for participation, but they say very little about how much researchers can pay their subjects. This paper argues that the federal regulations and guidelines should implement a standard payment formula. It argues for a wage payment model, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Nancy E. Kass & Jeremy Sugarman (1996). Are Research Subjects Adequately Protected? A Review and Discussion of Studies Conducted by the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 6 (3):271-282.score: 180.0
    : In light of information uncovered about human radiation experiments conducted during the Cold War, an important charge for the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments was to assess the current state of protections for human research subjects. This assessment was designed to enhance the Committee's ability to make informed recommendations for the improvement of future policies and practices for the protection of research subjects. The Committee's examination of current protections revealed great improvement over those from (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. B. Brown & M. W. Merritt (2012). A Global Public Incentive Database for Human Subjects Research. Irb 35 (2):14-17.score: 180.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. C. Paradis, M. P. Phelan & M. Brinich (2010). A Pilot Study to Examine Research Subjects' Perception of Participating in Research in the Emergency Department. Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (10):580-587.score: 180.0
    Study objectives The emergency department (ED) provides an arena for patient enrolment into a variety of research studies even for non-critically ill patients. Given the types of illness, time constraints and sense of urgency that exists in the ED environment, concern exists about whether research subjects in the ED can provide full consent for participation. We sought to identify enrolled research subjects' perspectives on the informed consent process for research conducted in the ED. Methods (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. M. Groman & J. Sugarman (2012). The Presidential Bioethics Commission's Database of Human Subjects Research. Irb 35 (2):18-19.score: 180.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. David Wendler & Emily Abdoler (2011). Does It Matter Whether Investigators Intend to Benefit Research Subjects? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (4):353-370.score: 174.0
    It is widely agreed that clinical research should satisfy a number of ethical requirements. These include requirements to address a valuable question, to select subjects fairly, and to pose appropriate risks. In contrast, there remains considerable debate over the ethical relevance of investigator intentions: Does it matter ethically whether investigators intend to collect generalizable knowledge or to benefit subjects, or both? Some commentators do not mention investigator intentions when evaluating what makes clinical research ethical (Emanuel, Wendler, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Dianne Quigley (forthcoming). Promoting Human Subjects Training for Place-Based Communities and Cultural Groups in Environmental Research: Curriculum Approaches for Graduate Student/Faculty Training. Science and Engineering Ethics:1-18.score: 174.0
    A collaborative team of environmental sociologists, community psychologists, religious studies scholars, environmental studies/science researchers and engineers has been working together to design and implement new training in research ethics, culture and community-based approaches for place-based communities and cultural groups. The training is designed for short and semester-long graduate courses at several universities in the northeastern US. The team received a 3 year grant from the US National Science Foundation’s Ethics Education in Science and Engineering in 2010. This manuscript details (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. David L. Evers, Carol B. Fowler, Jeffrey T. Mason & Rebecca K. Mimnall (forthcoming). Deliberate Microbial Infection Research Reveals Limitations to Current Safety Protections of Healthy Human Subjects. Science and Engineering Ethics:1-16.score: 174.0
    Here we identify approximately 40,000 healthy human volunteers who were intentionally exposed to infectious pathogens in clinical research studies dating from late World War II to the early 2000s. Microbial challenge experiments continue today under contemporary human subject research requirements. In fact, we estimated 4,000 additional volunteers who were experimentally infected between 2010 and the present day. We examine the risks and benefits of these experiments and present areas for improvement in protections of participants with respect to safety. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Janet Borgerson (2005). Addressing the 'Global Basic Structure' in the Ethics of International Health Research Involving Human Subjects. Journal of Philosophical Research 30:235-249.score: 162.0
    The context of international health research involving human subjects, and this should appear obvious, is the human community. As such, basic questions of how human beings should be treated by other human beings, particularly in situations of unequal power – e.g., in the form of control, choice, or opportunity – lay at the foundations of related ethical discourse when ethics are discussed at all. I trace a narrative that follows upon a recent revision process of international guidelines for (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Stephen Napier (2013). Challenging Research on Human Subjects: Justice and Uncompensated Harms. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (1):29-51.score: 158.0
    Ethical challenges to certain aspects of research on human subjects are not uncommon; examples include challenges to first-in-human trials (Chapman in J Clin Res Bioethics 2(4):1–8, 2011), certain placebo controlled trials (Anderson in J Med Philos 31:65–81, 2006; Anderson and Kimmelman in Kennedy Inst Ethics J 20(1):75–98, 2010) and “sham” surgery (Macklin in N Engl J Med 341:992–996, 1999). To date, however, there are few challenges to research when the subjects are competent and the research (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Mark Sheehan, Vernon Marti & Tony Roberts (2014). Ethical Review of Research on Human Subjects at Unilever: Reflections on Governance. Bioethics 28 (6):284-292.score: 156.0
    This article considers the process of ethical review of research on human subjects at a very large multinational consumer products company. The commercial context of this research throws up unique challenges and opportunities that make the ethics of the process of oversight distinct from mainstream medical research. Reflection on the justification of governance processes sheds important, contrasting light on the ethics of governance of other forms and context of research.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Czesław Radzikowski (2006). Protection of Animal Research Subjects. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):103-110.score: 156.0
    The use of experimental animals, mostly rodents, in biomedical research and especially in oncology and immunology should be acknowledged with respect, recognizing the contribution of animal experimentation in the fascinating scientific progress in these disciplines of research. It is an obligation of the investigator to justify the scientific and ethical aspects of each study requiring the use of animals. The international guiding principles for using animals in biomedical research are well defined and have been distributed worldwide by (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Jane Johnson & Neal D. Barnard (2014). Chimpanzees as Vulnerable Subjects in Research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (2):133-141.score: 156.0
    Using an approach developed in the context of human bioethics, we argue that chimpanzees in research can be regarded as vulnerable subjects. This vulnerability is primarily due to communication barriers and situational factors—confinement and dependency—that make chimpanzees particularly susceptible to risks of harm and exploitation in experimental settings. In human research, individuals who are deemed vulnerable are accorded special protections. Using conceptual and moral resources developed in the context of research with vulnerable humans, we show how (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Ken Kirkwood (2012). On the Exploitation of Research Subjects. Journal of Clinical Research and Bioethics 3 (3).score: 156.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Philip J. Candilis, Robert W. Wesley & Alison Wichman (1993). A Survey of Researchers Using a Consent Policy for Cognitively Impaired Human Research Subjects. Irb 15 (6):1.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Paul Gelsinger & Adil E. Shamoo (2008). Eight Years After Jesse's Death, Are Human Research Subjects Any Safer? Hastings Center Report 38 (2):25-27.score: 150.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Ruth Macklin (forthcoming). The Paradoxical Case of Payment as Benefit to Research Subjects. Irb.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Holly A. Taylor, Ellen Kuwana & Benjamin S. Wilfond (2014). The Ethics of Disclosing to Research Subjects the Availability of Off-Label Marketed Drugs. American Journal of Bioethics 14 (4):51-51.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. John Phillips & David Wendler (2014). Which Alternatives Should Investigators Disclose to Research Subjects? American Journal of Bioethics 14 (4):54-55.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Nicholas Christakis (forthcoming). Do Medical Student Research Subjects Need Special Protection? Irb.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Evan G. DeRenzo (forthcoming). Coercion in the Recruitment and Retention of Human Research Subjects, Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Physician-Investigators and the Moral Courage of the IRB. Irb.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Terrence F. Ackerman (1988). An Ethical Framework for the Practice of Paying Research Subjects. Irb 11 (4):1-4.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. David C. Flagel (forthcoming). Children as Research Subjects: New Guidelines for Canadian IRBs. Irb.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Edward W. Keyserlingk, K. Glass, S. Kogan & S. Gauthier (1995). Proposed Guidelines for the Participation of Persons with Dementia as Research Subjects. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 38 (2):319.score: 150.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Alvin Novick, Nancy Neveloff Dubler & Sheldon H. Landesman (1986). Do Research Subjects Have the Right Not to Know Their HIV Antibody Test Results? Irb 8 (5):6.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Joyce G. Reed (forthcoming). Regulatory Orphans: Juvenile Prisoners as Transvulnerable Research Subjects. Irb.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Nancy Neveloff Dubler (forthcoming). Treating Research Subjects Fairly. Irb.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Ruth W. Grant & Jeremy Sugarman (2004). Ethics in Human Subjects Research: Do Incentives Matter? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (6):717 – 738.score: 150.0
    There is considerable confusion regarding the ethical appropriateness of using incentives in research with human subjects. Previous work on determining whether incentives are unethical considers them as a form of undue influence or coercive offer. We understand the ethical issue of undue influence as an issue, not of coercion, but of corruption of judgment. By doing so we find that, for the most part, the use of incentives to recruit and retain research subjects is innocuous. But (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. D. B. Resnick (2008). Increasing the Amount of Payment to Research Subjects. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (9).score: 150.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Robert D. Truog (2003). Dying Patients as Research Subjects. Hastings Center Report 33 (1):3.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Ari VanderWalde & Seth Kurzban (2011). Paying Human Subjects in Research: Where Are We, How Did We Get Here, and Now What? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (3):543-558.score: 150.0
    Both international and federal regulations exist to ensure that scientists perform research on human subjects in an environment free of coercion and in which the benefits of the research are commensurate with the risks involved. Ensuring that these conditions hold is difficult, and perhaps even more so when protocols include the issue of monetary compensation of research subjects. The morality of paying human research subjects has been hotly debated for over 40 years, and (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Ruth Dreyfus (1998). A Collaborative Conference on Women as Research Subjects. Irb 20 (6):12.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Maurie Markman (forthcoming). What Must Research Subjects Be Told Regarding the Results of Completed Randomized Trials? Irb.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Joan Paine Porter (1992). Protecting Human Research Subjects: The Office for Protection From Research Risks. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2 (3):279-282.score: 150.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000