Beyond categorisation: refining the relationship between subjects and objects in health research regulation.

Q1 Social Sciences Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2021-03-18 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1080/17579961.2021.1898314
Catriona McMillan, Edward Dove, Graeme Laurie, Emily Postan, Nayha Sethi, Annie Sorbie
{"title":"Beyond categorisation: refining the relationship between subjects and objects in health research regulation.","authors":"Catriona McMillan,&nbsp;Edward Dove,&nbsp;Graeme Laurie,&nbsp;Emily Postan,&nbsp;Nayha Sethi,&nbsp;Annie Sorbie","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2021.1898314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, we argue that the relationship between 'subject' and 'object' is poorly understood in health research regulation (HRR), and that it is a fallacy to suppose that they can operate in separate, fixed silos. By seeking to perpetuate this fallacy, HRR risks, among other things, objectifying persons by paying insufficient attention to human subjectivity, and the experiences and interests related to being involved in research. We deploy the anthropological concept of liminality - concerned with processes of transformation and change over time - to emphasise the enduring connectedness between subject and object in these contexts. By these means, we posit that regulatory frameworks based on <i>processual regulation</i> can better recognise and encompass the fluidity and significance of these relationships, and so ground more securely the moral legitimacy and social licence for human health research.</p>","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"13 1","pages":"194-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898314","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law, Innovation and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898314","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In this article, we argue that the relationship between 'subject' and 'object' is poorly understood in health research regulation (HRR), and that it is a fallacy to suppose that they can operate in separate, fixed silos. By seeking to perpetuate this fallacy, HRR risks, among other things, objectifying persons by paying insufficient attention to human subjectivity, and the experiences and interests related to being involved in research. We deploy the anthropological concept of liminality - concerned with processes of transformation and change over time - to emphasise the enduring connectedness between subject and object in these contexts. By these means, we posit that regulatory frameworks based on processual regulation can better recognise and encompass the fluidity and significance of these relationships, and so ground more securely the moral legitimacy and social licence for human health research.

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
超越分类:细化卫生研究监管中主体和客体之间的关系。
在这篇文章中,我们认为,在卫生研究监管(HRR)中,“主体”和“客体”之间的关系理解得很差,并且假设它们可以在单独的、固定的筒仓中运作是一种谬误。为了使这一谬论永久化,人权高专率除其他外,由于对人的主体性以及与参与研究有关的经验和利益重视不足,有将人客观化的风险。我们运用人类学的阈限概念——关注随着时间的变化和转变的过程——来强调在这些背景下主体和客体之间持久的联系。通过这些手段,我们假设基于程序监管的监管框架可以更好地识别和包含这些关系的流动性和重要性,从而更安全地为人类健康研究奠定道德合法性和社会许可。
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
Law, Innovation and Technology
Law, Innovation and Technology Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Stem cell research, cloning, GMOs ... How do regulations affect such emerging technologies? What impact do new technologies have on law? And can we rely on technology itself as a regulatory tool? The meeting of law and technology is rapidly becoming an increasingly significant (and controversial) topic. Law, Innovation and Technology is, however, the only journal to engage fully with it, setting an innovative and distinctive agenda for lawyers, ethicists and policy makers. Spanning ICTs, biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, neurotechnologies, robotics and AI, it offers a unique forum for the highest level of reflection on this essential area.
期刊最新文献
Predictive analytics and the collective dimensions of data protection The relationship between law and technology: comparing legal responses to creators’ rights under copyright law through safe harbour for online intermediaries and generative AI technology Navigating the dichotomy of smart prisons: between surveillance and rehabilitation Ethics reviews in the European Union. Implications for the governance of scientific research in times of data science and Artificial Intelligence The EU legal framework for algorithmic recommender systems: I (don’t) know it when I see it
×
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