Article info
PDFResearch ethics
Response
The case for a duty to research: not yet proven
- Correspondence to Dr Iain Brassington,CSEP/iSEI/ School of Law, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;iain.brassington{at}manchester.ac.uk
Citation
The case for a duty to research: not yet proven
Publication history
- Received January 18, 2013
- Accepted February 5, 2013
- First published March 1, 2013.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
Other content recommended for you
- Why participating in (certain) scientific research is a moral duty
- Herpes genitalis and the philosopher's stance
- Scientific research is a moral duty
- Balancing professional obligations and risks to providers in learning healthcare systems
- Is procreative beneficence obligatory?
- Respect for autonomy: deciding what is good for oneself
- Dotting the I's and crossing the T's: autonomy and/or beneficence? The ‘fetus as a patient’ in maternal–fetal surgery
- Ethical reflection on the harm in reproductive decision-making
- Kant on euthanasia and the duty to die: clearing the air
- Justification of principles for healthcare priority setting: the relevance and roles of empirical studies exploring public values