Scientific Ethical Integrity and Human Research Subjects Protections Non-compliance Remediation: Commentary on Practical Considerations and Implications

Ralph J Johnson, Ralph J Johnson
{"title":"Scientific Ethical Integrity and Human Research Subjects Protections Non-compliance Remediation: Commentary on Practical Considerations and Implications","authors":"Ralph J Johnson, Ralph J Johnson","doi":"10.14302/issn.2576-9383.jhhr-22-4138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Medical science’s advancements depend on preserving its credibility and the public trust, though as a human institution it is fallible and liable to ethical breaches that can void public confidence and support. There is no more egregious ethical departure than deviations / violations of Human Research Subjects Protections (i.e., non-compliance), which is remarkable given they are fairly widespread and often repeated. Once uncovered, this generally should result in the research’s suspension or termination. Yet, there is a third option to preserve valuable and worthy research that went awry due to lapses in Human Research Subjects Protections, specifically, Remediation. Due to the sequestered nature of Remediation, little has been reported on its processes, and practically nothing, regarding practical considerations, recommendations, and implications for the remediation workers themselves—for this line of work is perilously risky. This commentary reports some of those best-practices, “first-hand grittier in-the-trenches” informed practical lessons learned. Implications are discussed in the interest of improving the reasonable, balanced, and competent ethical conduct of research, addressing / avoiding Human Subjects Protections ethical non-compliance, and avenues for further inquiry regarding Remediation.","PeriodicalId":211342,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Health Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14302/issn.2576-9383.jhhr-22-4138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Medical science’s advancements depend on preserving its credibility and the public trust, though as a human institution it is fallible and liable to ethical breaches that can void public confidence and support. There is no more egregious ethical departure than deviations / violations of Human Research Subjects Protections (i.e., non-compliance), which is remarkable given they are fairly widespread and often repeated. Once uncovered, this generally should result in the research’s suspension or termination. Yet, there is a third option to preserve valuable and worthy research that went awry due to lapses in Human Research Subjects Protections, specifically, Remediation. Due to the sequestered nature of Remediation, little has been reported on its processes, and practically nothing, regarding practical considerations, recommendations, and implications for the remediation workers themselves—for this line of work is perilously risky. This commentary reports some of those best-practices, “first-hand grittier in-the-trenches” informed practical lessons learned. Implications are discussed in the interest of improving the reasonable, balanced, and competent ethical conduct of research, addressing / avoiding Human Subjects Protections ethical non-compliance, and avenues for further inquiry regarding Remediation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
科学伦理诚信与人类研究受试者保护不合规补救:评析实践考虑与启示
医学科学的进步依赖于保持其信誉和公众信任,尽管作为一个人类机构,它可能会犯错,容易出现道德违规,从而失去公众的信任和支持。没有比偏离/违反人类研究受试者保护(即不遵守)更令人震惊的道德背离了,这是值得注意的,因为它们相当普遍,而且经常重复。一旦被发现,这通常会导致研究的暂停或终止。然而,还有第三种选择,可以保护由于人类研究对象保护方面的失误而出错的有价值的研究,特别是补救措施。由于修复工作的封闭性,几乎没有关于其过程的报道,实际上也没有关于实际考虑、建议和对修复工作人员本身的影响的报道——因为这一行的工作是危险的。这篇评论报道了一些最佳实践,“第一手的战壕中坚韧不拔”的实践经验教训。本文讨论了改善合理、平衡和有能力的研究伦理行为的意义,解决/避免人类受试者保护伦理违规问题,以及进一步调查补救措施的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Monkey Study, Mandatory Military Retirement, and Legitimate Humanitarian Assistance / Disaster Relief (HA/DR) / Public Health Post-Service Paramilitary Substitutes: Letter to the Editor Estimation Of Glycemic Index Of Liver Nutritional Supplement And Its Importance In Liver Nutrition Progress in Rehabilitation Treatments for Sepsis Patients in ICU Scientific Ethical Integrity and Human Research Subjects Protections Non-compliance Remediation: Commentary on Practical Considerations and Implications An Investigation on Dietetics and Nutritional Interests using Quantitative Analysis in the Existing Prevalent Conditions of COVID-19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1