Article Text
Commentary
The goodness of ethics in research ethics review
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
↵i Aristotle (1971). The Nichochean Ethics of Aristotle. Ross, WD, translator. London: Oxford University Press.
↵ii E.g., Kenneth Kipnis, Nancy King, Robert Nelson. An Open Letter to Institutional Review Boards Considering Northfield Laboratories' PolyHeme® Trial, 2006, AJOB 6:18–21.
↵iii E.g., The OHRP and SUPPORT, N Engl J Med 2013;368:e36.
↵iv E.g., Farmer P, Campos NG. New malaise: bioethics and human rights in the global era. J Law Med Ethics 2004;32:243–51.
↵v E.g., Marcia Angel, The Ethics of Clinical Research in the Third World, 1997, NEJM 337(12):847–849
Linked Articles
- Feature article
- Commentary
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Ethics committees for biomedical research in some African emerging countries: which establishment for which independence? A comparison with the USA and Canada
- Contesting the science/ethics distinction in the review of clinical research
- The battering of informed consent
- Ethical concerns regarding guidelines for the conduct of clinical research on children
- Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk
- Problems and development strategies for research ethics committees in China’s higher education institutions
- How not to argue against mandatory ethics review
- Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?
- Ensuring respect for persons in COMPASS: a cluster randomised pragmatic clinical trial
- Research ethics committees: the role of ethics in a regulatory authority