Article Text
PDF
Abstract
In a previous paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, the authors argued that the research ethical principle stating that the individual shall have priority over science, found in many guidelines, is utterly unclear and because of this should be explicated or otherwise deleted. In a recent commentary, Parker argued that this leaves us defending a position that would allow totalitarian regimes to pursue glory at the expense of its citizens. The present response addresses this and similar accusations.
- ethical guidelines
- ethics
- institutional review boards
- policy guidelines
- primacy principle
- research subjects
- review committees
- scientific research
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding The original paper criticised by Parker was part of a project funded by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.
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:
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The moral primacy of the human being
- Against the principle that the individual shall have priority over science
- For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies
- Informed consent in cluster randomised trials: new and common ethical challenges
- Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants
- Limits to research risks
- A public health perspective on research ethics
- Deception of children in research
- Personal knowledge and study participation
- Problems and development strategies for research ethics committees in China ’s higher education institutions