人类研究伦理的私有化:一个美国故事

S. Babb
{"title":"人类研究伦理的私有化:一个美国故事","authors":"S. Babb","doi":"10.1163/26667711-bja10005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn recent decades, there has been a remarkable shift in the governance of human research ethics in the United States. A model once based on review by panels of local volunteers has given way to a system dominated by large, for-profit research ethics committees. America’s reliance on for-profit ethics review is unique among wealthy industrialized countries. How can we account for this anomaly? In this article, I show that for-profit irb s represent only the most visible aspect of the privatization of human research protections in the United States. I suggest that private institutions have emerged as “workaround” solutions to systemic problems, in the absence of comprehensive policy reforms.","PeriodicalId":72967,"journal":{"name":"European journal for the history of medicine and health","volume":"18 10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Privatization of Human Research Ethics: An American Story\",\"authors\":\"S. Babb\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/26667711-bja10005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn recent decades, there has been a remarkable shift in the governance of human research ethics in the United States. A model once based on review by panels of local volunteers has given way to a system dominated by large, for-profit research ethics committees. America’s reliance on for-profit ethics review is unique among wealthy industrialized countries. How can we account for this anomaly? In this article, I show that for-profit irb s represent only the most visible aspect of the privatization of human research protections in the United States. I suggest that private institutions have emerged as “workaround” solutions to systemic problems, in the absence of comprehensive policy reforms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72967,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal for the history of medicine and health\",\"volume\":\"18 10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal for the history of medicine and health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/26667711-bja10005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal for the history of medicine and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26667711-bja10005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近几十年来,美国对人类研究伦理的管理发生了显著的转变。一个曾经基于当地志愿者小组审查的模式,已经让位于一个由大型营利性研究伦理委员会主导的体系。美国对营利性伦理审查的依赖在富裕的工业化国家中是独一无二的。我们如何解释这种反常现象?在这篇文章中,我展示了营利性的irb只代表了美国人类研究保护私有化最明显的方面。我认为,在缺乏全面政策改革的情况下,私人机构已成为系统性问题的“变通”解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Privatization of Human Research Ethics: An American Story
In recent decades, there has been a remarkable shift in the governance of human research ethics in the United States. A model once based on review by panels of local volunteers has given way to a system dominated by large, for-profit research ethics committees. America’s reliance on for-profit ethics review is unique among wealthy industrialized countries. How can we account for this anomaly? In this article, I show that for-profit irb s represent only the most visible aspect of the privatization of human research protections in the United States. I suggest that private institutions have emerged as “workaround” solutions to systemic problems, in the absence of comprehensive policy reforms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disease Prevention in a Communist State and the Second Epidemiological Transition: The Case of Post-war Poland The Great Plague Scare of 1720: Disaster and Diplomacy in the Eighteenth-Century Atlantic World, written by Cindy Ermus Poor, Sick, and Mad: Treating the Mentally Ill in the Hungarian Hospitals of the Brothers of Mercy (1740–1830) Diabetes. Eine Wissensgeschichte der modernen Medizin 1900–1960, written by Oliver Falk Expanding Mindscapes: A Global History of Psychedelics, edited by Erika Dyck and Chris Elcock
×
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