Article info
PDFResponse
Reasonable disagreement and the justification of pre-emptive ethics governance in social research: a response to Hammersley
- Correspondence to Dr Mark Sheehan, Ethox Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LG, UK; mark.sheehan{at}philosophy.ox.ac.uk
Citation
Reasonable disagreement and the justification of pre-emptive ethics governance in social research: a response to Hammersley
Publication history
- Received May 24, 2018
- Accepted May 31, 2018
- First published June 26, 2018.
Online issue publication
September 25, 2018
Article Versions
- Previous version (26 June 2018).
- 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
© 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.
Other content recommended for you
- In defence of governance: ethics review and social research
- Response to Sheehan et al ’s ‘ In defence of governance: ethics review and social research ’
- Getting the justification for research ethics review right
- The structure of ethics review: expert ethics committees and the challenge of voluntary research euthanasia
- Research ethics committees: the role of ethics in a regulatory authority
- Diversity of scholarship in medical ethics
- Health policy and systems research: towards a better understanding and review of ethical issues
- The ‘ ethics committee ’ job is administrative: a response to commentaries
- Implementation of the process of ethical review of improvement activities at the Children 's Hospital at Westmead
- ‘ The ethics approval took 20 months on a trial which was meant to help terminally ill cancer patients. In the end we had to send the funding back ’: a survey of views on human research ethics reviews