Using Our Best Judgment in Conducting Human Research.

The federal regulations of human research were written to permit the use of discretion so that research can fit the circumstances under which it is conducted. For example, the researcher and institutional review board (IRB) could waive or alter some informed consent elements if they deem this the mo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Ethics & Behavior Vol. 14; no. 4; pp. 297 - 305
Autor principal: Sieber, Joan E.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Taylor & Francis Ltd Oct2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=15805521&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 15805521
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        10508422
        7LU
      jtl: Ethics & Behavior
      issn: 10508422
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Oct2004
      vid: 14
      iid: 4
      pid: 377
      pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd
    artinfo:
      ui:
        15805521
        10.1207/s15327019eb1404_1
      ppf: 297
      ppct: 8
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Using Our Best Judgment in Conducting Human Research.
      aug:
        au: Sieber, Joan E.
        affil: Department of Psychology, California State University, Hayward
      su:
        Research ethics
        Professional ethics
        Medical experimentation on humans
        Decision making
        Medical care
        Institutional review boards
      sug:
        subj:
          Research ethics
          Professional ethics
          Medical experimentation on humans
          Decision making
          Medical care
          Institutional review boards
      keyword:
        empirical research on research ethics
        ethical problem solving
        federal regulations
        inchoate uncertainty
        IRBs
        empirical research on research ethics
        ethical problem solving
        federal regulations
        inchoate uncertainty
        IRBs
      ab: The federal regulations of human research were written to permit the use of discretion so that research can fit the circumstances under which it is conducted. For example, the researcher and institutional review board (IRB) could waive or alter some informed consent elements if they deem this the morally and scientifically best way to conduct the research. To do so, however, researchers and IRBs would first have to use mature moral and scientific judgment. They might also have to rely on empirical research to discover the most effective way to act on their moral sense (e.g., to discover how best to approach potential research participants and explain the nature and purpose of the research participation for which they are being recruited, to ensure comprehension and competent decision making). On discovering the most ethical way to proceed, they would then need to look to the federal regulations of human research to discover how to document their decision and justify it within that somewhat flexible regulatory structure. Unfortunately, many IRBs and researchers fail to take these sensible steps to solve ethical problems and proceed immediately to a default requirement of the regulations that places science at odds with the regulations and, ostensibly, with ethics. The following articles in this special issue are about the process of learning to engage in ethical problem solving and using the flexibility permitted by the federal regulations. These articles extricate researchers from the mindset that has gotten them into trouble, and, ideally, provoke them to use mature common sense and moral judgment.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N