7 found
Order:
  1.  14
    Does Student Research Require a Lower Standard of Ethical Scrutiny?Stephen J. Humphreys - 2008 - Research Ethics 4 (4):141-146.
    Recognizing that students are fundamentally engaged in a process of learning and self-development, ethical review of sub-doctoral student research should be proportionate to that objective. A student's tutor has the pedagogical role and an ethics committee should not interfere with that relationship other than to seek to avoid harms unforeseen by either the student or tutor. Underpowered or other statistically or methodologically flawed sub-doctoral research should not however, in general, be regarded as ethically concerning. With the proviso that no subject (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  2.  12
    Bloodless DNA.Stephen J. Humphreys - 2009 - Research Ethics 5 (3):120-120.
    Although pharmaceutical practice tends to prefer to take DNA samples from whole blood, this could be both unnecessary and even unethical. The buccal swabbing method offers to provide an adequate and reliable sample less invasively and with the necessary minimal risk to the subject that virtually all ethical guidelines advocate.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  7
    Ethics Committee Membership Selection: A Moral Preference Tool.Stephen J. Humphreys - 2010 - Research Ethics 6 (2):37-42.
    How the diversity of membership of research ethics committees is arrived at has, to date, largely been fairly arbitrary. However, a tool to help determine one's moral preference is now available and it is introduced here as, arguably, having the potential to assist with ensuring a more meaningful diversity amongst an ethics committee's membership. The tool is seen to be easily applied – but, it is argued, may be conceived on at least two false premises. Firstly, despite different theories of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  13
    Ethical research practice and journal publication.Stephen J. Humphreys - 2016 - Ethics and Social Welfare 10 (1):71-74.
  5.  19
    How safe are new medical devices?Stephen J. Humphreys - 2012 - Research Ethics 8 (1):43-48.
    In this article, I identify the peculiar challenges of current regulation in the UK to assess the safety of new medical devices. Not only is there a limited role for the regulatory authority in assessing their safety, but also no clinical investigation might be needed before many new devices can be marketed for use in populations across the European Union. As a lay member of a committee flagged to review research involving medical devices, I describe some of the difficulties we (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  14
    The Body Mass Index — Just Who Does it Include?Stephen J. Humphreys - 2009 - Research Ethics 5 (1):18-20.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  16
    The Sociology of Bioethics: The 'is' and the 'Ought'.Stephen J. Humphreys - 2008 - Research Ethics 4 (2):47-51.
    A selection of recent sociological literature dealing with bioethics, concentrating particularly on its interface with research ethics, is reviewed to reveal that the two disciplines of bioethics and sociology have tendencies to approach subject matters from opposed perspectives. These differences in approach have now been generally recognized, accepted and accommodated by proponents of both disciplines. A turning point in the relationship between the two disciplines may have been reached which augers greater mutual respect, appreciation and even learning.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation