Article Text
PDFResponse
Response to Sheehan et al’s ‘In defence of governance: ethics review and social research’
Abstract
This response welcomes Sheehan et al’s discussion of the criticisms that have been made of mandatory, pre-emptive ethics regulation and their outline of a philosophical rationale for it. However, it is argued that they misrepresent some of the key criticisms and fail to provide any effective response to them.
- ethics
- ethics committees/consultation
- research ethics
- sociology
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally 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:
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- In defence of governance: ethics review and social research
- Reasonable disagreement and the justification of pre-emptive ethics governance in social research: a response to Hammersley
- Diversity of scholarship in medical ethics
- Getting the justification for research ethics review right
- Rolling back the bureaucracies of ethics review
- Can bioethics be an honest way of making a living? A reflection on normativity, governance and expertise
- On the impermissibility of infant male circumcision: a response to Mazor (2013)
- The child 's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- Better governance in academic health sciences centres: moving beyond the Olivieri / Apotex Affair in Toronto
- Ethics and governance of global health inequalities