scholarly journals Research Ethics Boards: The Protection of Human Subjects

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 3 (10) ◽  
pp. e472
Author(s):  
Valia S Lestou ◽  
Nancy Ondrusek ◽  
Morris A Blajchman
2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 815-826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathy L Rozmus ◽  
Nathan Carlin ◽  
Angela Polczynski ◽  
Jeffrey Spike ◽  
Richard Buday

Background: One of the barriers to interprofessional ethics education is a lack of resources that actively engage students in reflection on living an ethical professional life. This project implemented and evaluated an innovative resource for interprofessional ethics education. Objectives: The objective of this project was to create and evaluate an interprofessional learning activity on professionalism, clinical ethics, and research ethics. Design: The Brewsters is a choose-your-own-adventure novel that addresses professionalism, clinical ethics, and research ethics. For the pilot of the book, a pre-test/post-test design was used. Once implemented across campus, a post-test was used to evaluate student learning in addition to a student satisfaction survey. Participants and research context: A total of 755 students in six academic schools in a health science center completed the activity as part of orientation or in coursework. Ethical considerations: The project was approved as exempt by the university’s Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects. Findings: The pilot study with 112 students demonstrated a significant increase in student knowledge. The 755 students who participated in the project had relatively high knowledge scores on the post-test and evaluated the activity positively. Discussion: Students who read The Brewsters scored well on the post-test and had the highest scores on clinical ethics. Clinical ethics scores may indicate issues encountered in mass media. Conclusion: The Brewsters is an innovative resource for teaching interprofessional ethics and professionalism. Further work is needed to determine whether actual and long-term behavior is affected by the activity.


In this chapter, students are presented with the many ethical dilemmas that can potentially confront social science researchers. Research ethics centers of two fundamental principles: 1) the protection of human subjects and 2) maintaining the integrity of the research process. Both of these principles are discussed in the context of popular culture and past transgressions of researchers, specifically the film Ghostbusters, the Tuskegee experiments, and Milgram experiments.


2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Drewry

This article explores the evolution of research ethics in the protection of human subjects. Included in the examination of research ethics are a brief history of twentieth-century critical incidents in human subjects research, a review of formal efforts to define the values and principles of research ethics, theoretical foundations of ethical research, and relevance to contemporary social work theory, practice, and education.Wisdom is sold in the desolate marketWhere none come to buy.—William BlakeGermany, 1948—Rudolph Helwig sits uncomfortably in the witness chair at the trial of accused Nazi scientists in Nuremberg. He is a young man, barely into his twenties, but he wears a look of perpetual fear upon his face. Helwig is afraid right now, and ashamed. Everyone in the courtroom is watching him. The prosecutor approaches the witness stand. Helwig's eyes dart to the defendants' bench, where rows of older men sit, drowsy and unperturbed. The prosecutor asks Helwig why he had been sent to Ravensbruck concentration camp in 1943. Helwig doesn't know. He is asked if he is mentally retarded. Helwig doesn't know. One of the older men smiles. The prosecutor asks Helwig why he was chosen for Ravensbruck's sterilization experiments. This Helwig knows, “I suppose it was because I could not defend myself.”


Author(s):  
Richard W. Schwester

In this chapter, students are presented with the many ethical dilemmas that can potentially confront social science researchers. Research ethics centers of two fundamental principles: 1) the protection of human subjects and 2) maintaining the integrity of the research process. Both of these principles are discussed in the context of popular culture and past transgressions of researchers, specifically the film Ghostbusters, the Tuskegee experiments, and Milgram experiments.


2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Buchanan ◽  
John Aycock ◽  
Scott Dexter ◽  
David Dittrich ◽  
Erin Hvizdak

2021 ◽  
pp. 009862832110159
Author(s):  
Maya C. Rose ◽  
Jessica E. Brodsky ◽  
Elizabeth S. Che ◽  
Patricia J. Brooks

Background: Introductory Psychology students rarely learn about unethical biomedical research outside the Tuskegee syphilis study, but these practices were widespread in U.S. public health research (e.g., at the Willowbrook State School researchers infected children with disabilities with hepatitis). Objectives: Replicate and extend Grose-Fifer’s research ethics activity by evaluating if an online homework and in-class role-play increased awareness of unethical research and abuses at Tuskegee (replication) and Willowbrook (extension) and subsequent changes in human subjects protections. Method: As homework, students read about the studies and wrote statements from perspectives of individuals involved. In class, students read their statements and discussed how outrage led to research conduct regulations. Online pre/posttests asked students why it was important to learn about both studies. Results: At posttest, students were more aware of unethical research at Willowbrook and that Tuskegee led to changes in human subjects protections. Students who completed the role-play activity were less likely to mention abuses for Tuskegee than students who did not participate. Conclusion: We were partially successful in replicating and extending Grose-Fifer. Teaching Implications: Research ethics instruction should draw attention to historical precedents and how public outrage and social activism led to increased protections for research participants.


2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. DEBORAH SHILOFF ◽  
BRYAN MAGWOOD ◽  
KRISZTINA L. MALISZA

The process of research is often lengthy and can be extremely arduous. It may take many years to proceed from the initial development of an idea through to the comparison of the new modalities against a current gold-standard practice. Each step along the way involves rigorous scientific review, where protocols are scrutinized by multiple scientists not only in the specific field at hand but related fields as well. In addition to scientific review, most countries require a further review by a panel that will specifically address the ethics of the proposed research. In Canada, those panels are referred to as Research Ethics Boards (REB), with the United States counterparts known as Institutional Review Boards (IRB).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document