Conceptual framework—setting the scene for ‘protection’ and ‘promotion’

E. Dove
{"title":"Conceptual framework—setting the scene for ‘protection’ and ‘promotion’","authors":"E. Dove","doi":"10.4337/9781788975353.00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Human health research, which can be defined as research into matters relating to people’s physical or mental health, is a formalized, institutionalized, and regulated activity, replete with actors, rules, tools, policies, and diffuse sets of social constraints. Researchers who wish to gather data, investigate questions, test hypotheses, and build new generalizable knowledge on topics that involve human participants confront at the earliest stages of their project design the application of abstract ethical principles such as respect for persons, social value, beneficence, and justice, not to mention rules regarding informed consent and confidentiality. Additionally, researchers confront a panoply of law and regulation. When it comes to health research involving humans, determination of its ethical acceptability has taken a particularly regulated, technocratic, and structured form, with specific groups of individuals wielding power to decide whether a research project may proceed on ethical grounds. This group is known as a research ethics committee (REC), which is also known as an institutional review board (IRB) and research ethics board (REB). This book will explore the mandate and operation of one particular type of REC in the UK, the NHS REC, drawing on both governance instruments and policies and original empirical research. This chapter begins the process by querying whether the practices of these RECs align with their recently established regulatory mandate—as set out in instruments promulgated by the UK government, devolved administrations, and regulatory bodies—which has modified the regulatory environment involving human health research. In particular, it explores a shift from a protectionist model that has been seen by some as paternalistic, with regulators disproportionately focusing on research risks in comparison to research benefits and inexplicably road-blocking otherwise ethical research, to a more broadly facilitative model, undergirded by law, that","PeriodicalId":351584,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Stewardship of Health Research","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulatory Stewardship of Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788975353.00007","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

Human health research, which can be defined as research into matters relating to people’s physical or mental health, is a formalized, institutionalized, and regulated activity, replete with actors, rules, tools, policies, and diffuse sets of social constraints. Researchers who wish to gather data, investigate questions, test hypotheses, and build new generalizable knowledge on topics that involve human participants confront at the earliest stages of their project design the application of abstract ethical principles such as respect for persons, social value, beneficence, and justice, not to mention rules regarding informed consent and confidentiality. Additionally, researchers confront a panoply of law and regulation. When it comes to health research involving humans, determination of its ethical acceptability has taken a particularly regulated, technocratic, and structured form, with specific groups of individuals wielding power to decide whether a research project may proceed on ethical grounds. This group is known as a research ethics committee (REC), which is also known as an institutional review board (IRB) and research ethics board (REB). This book will explore the mandate and operation of one particular type of REC in the UK, the NHS REC, drawing on both governance instruments and policies and original empirical research. This chapter begins the process by querying whether the practices of these RECs align with their recently established regulatory mandate—as set out in instruments promulgated by the UK government, devolved administrations, and regulatory bodies—which has modified the regulatory environment involving human health research. In particular, it explores a shift from a protectionist model that has been seen by some as paternalistic, with regulators disproportionately focusing on research risks in comparison to research benefits and inexplicably road-blocking otherwise ethical research, to a more broadly facilitative model, undergirded by law, that
概念框架——为“保护”和“促进”设定场景
人类健康研究可以定义为对人的身体或精神健康有关事项的研究,是一项正式的、制度化的和受管制的活动,充满了行动者、规则、工具、政策和分散的社会制约因素。研究人员希望收集数据,调查问题,检验假设,并在涉及人类参与者的主题上建立新的可概括的知识,在他们的项目设计的最初阶段面临抽象伦理原则的应用,如尊重人,社会价值,慈善和正义,更不用说关于知情同意和保密的规则。此外,研究人员还要面对一整套法律法规。当涉及人类的健康研究时,对其伦理可接受性的确定采取了一种特别规范的、技术官僚的和结构化的形式,由特定的个人群体掌握权力,决定一个研究项目是否可以基于伦理理由进行。这个小组被称为研究伦理委员会(REC),也被称为机构审查委员会(IRB)和研究伦理委员会(REB)。这本书将探讨的任务和运作的一个特定类型的REC在英国,NHS REC,借鉴治理工具和政策和原始的实证研究。本章通过查询这些RECs的实践是否与他们最近建立的监管授权(如英国政府、权力下放的行政部门和监管机构颁布的文书所规定的)相一致,从而开始了这一过程,这些监管授权修改了涉及人类健康研究的监管环境。特别是,它探讨了一种从保护主义模式向更广泛的促进模式的转变,这种模式被一些人视为家长式的,监管机构过分关注研究风险,而不是研究收益,莫名其妙地阻碍了原本合乎道德的研究
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信