Do we need research ethics committees?

Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):485-485 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This issue of the journal sees a number of exchanges on significant ethical problems. ‘Nudges’ have attracted a good deal of attention recently in the context of the ethics of public health interventions. Martin Wilkinson writes a guest editorial introducing important debate on Yashar Saghai's featured article, Salvaging the concept of nudge . Also, Timothy Murphy locks horns with Katrien Devolder and Ezio Di Nucci on the doctrine of double effect as it applies to research on embryos.One of the exchanges published here involves the legitimacy of research ethics review. Murray Dyck and Gary Allen claim that only in a small minority of cases is research ethics review warranted and that, in the main, responsibility for the ethical conduct of research should lie with the researchers themselves.However, David Hunter Mark Israel (see …

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,809

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How not to argue against mandatory ethics review.David Hunter - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):521-524.
Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?Murray Dyck & Gary Allen - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):517-520.
Research ethics review and the bureaucracy.Paul M. McNeill - 2002 - Monash Bioethics Review 21 (3):S72-S73.
Should research ethics committees be told how to think?G. M. Sayers - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (1):39-42.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-03

Downloads
107 (#198,388)

6 months
11 (#338,628)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references