Wilson, J; Hunter, D; (2010) Research Exceptionalism. American Journal of Bioethics , 10 (8) pp. 45-54. 10.1080/15265161.2010.482630.
|PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader|
Research involving human subjects is much more stringently regulated than many other nonresearch activities that appear to be at least as risky. A number of prominent figures now argue that research is overregulated. We argue that the reasons typically offered to justify the present system of research regulation fail to show that research should be subject to more stringent regulation than other equally risky activities. However, there are three often overlooked reasons for thinking that research should be treated as a special case. First, research typically involves the imposition of risk on people who do not benefit from this risk imposition. Second, research depends on public trust. Third, the complexity of the moral decision making required favors ethics committees as a regulative solution for research.
|Open access status:||An open access version is available from UCL Discovery|
|Additional information:||This is an electronic version of an article published in American Journal of Bioethics: Wilson, J and Hunter, D (2010) Research Exceptionalism. American Journal of Bioethics , 10 (8) pp. 45-54. American Journal of Bioethics is available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/openurl?genre=article&issn=1526-5161&date=2010&volume=10&issue=8&spage=45|
|Keywords:||ethics committees, human subjects research, professional ethics, regulatory issues, research ethics, risk, benefit analysis, CLINICAL-RESEARCH, ETHICS COMMITTEES, UNDUE INDUCEMENT, AUDIT, THREAT, HEALTH, TRIAL|
|UCL classification:||UCL > School of Arts and Social Sciences > Faculty of Arts and Humanities > Philosophy|
View download statistics for this item
Activity - last month
Activity - last 12 months
Archive Staff Only: edit this record