IRB: Ethics & Human Research 34 (2):9-14 (2012)

Mahesh Ananth
Indiana University South Bend
Michael Scheessele
Indiana University South Bend
In a recent commentary, Kim and colleagues argued that minimal-risk research should be deregulated so that such studies do not require review by an institutional review board. They claim that regulation of minimal-risk studies provides no adequate counterbalancing good and instead leads to a costly human subjects oversight system. We argue that the counterbalancing good of regulating minimal-risk studies is that oversight exists to ensure that respect for persons and justice requirements are satisfied when they otherwise might not be
Keywords info:mesh/Social Control, Formal  info:mesh/Biomedical Research  info:mesh/United States  info:mesh/Humans  info:mesh/Ethics Committees, Research  Humans   Risk Assessment   Biomedical Research   Social Control, Formal   Ethics Committees, Research   United States
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Minimal Risk in Research Involving Pregnant Women and Fetuses.Carson Strong - 2011 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (3):529-538.


Added to PP index

Total views
256 ( #38,411 of 2,454,450 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #58,896 of 2,454,450 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes