Limits of ethical non-human subjects research in an applied setting.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Adam T Biggs
{"title":"Limits of ethical non-human subjects research in an applied setting.","authors":"Adam T Biggs","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2313018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ethical research follows numerous rules and regulations to ensure that all human subjects are protected during the collection and dissemination of research outcomes. Nevertheless, there is often a critical distinction drawn between human subjects research and non-human subjects research (NHSR). The latter can also be described as non-research activities, which typically reduces any oversight even if human subjects are involved. Despite the need to conduct ethical NHSR or non-research activities in an applied setting, there are several ways this determination can be used to circumvent regulatory oversight. In particular, the problem arises because one or more of several key functions become conflated in an applied setting, whereas they would be compartmentalized and independent in controlled or experimental settings. These functions include: 1) ethical oversight; 2) funding; 3) execution; and 4) peer review. The current discussion outlines how NHSR in an applied setting can allow these functions to overlap, and how personnel might stretch the boundaries of ethical conduct even while following existing regulations. As such, the goal is to guide future practices when conducting or reviewing NHSR in an applied setting so that unethical practices do not bias the results.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"558-579"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2313018","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ethical research follows numerous rules and regulations to ensure that all human subjects are protected during the collection and dissemination of research outcomes. Nevertheless, there is often a critical distinction drawn between human subjects research and non-human subjects research (NHSR). The latter can also be described as non-research activities, which typically reduces any oversight even if human subjects are involved. Despite the need to conduct ethical NHSR or non-research activities in an applied setting, there are several ways this determination can be used to circumvent regulatory oversight. In particular, the problem arises because one or more of several key functions become conflated in an applied setting, whereas they would be compartmentalized and independent in controlled or experimental settings. These functions include: 1) ethical oversight; 2) funding; 3) execution; and 4) peer review. The current discussion outlines how NHSR in an applied setting can allow these functions to overlap, and how personnel might stretch the boundaries of ethical conduct even while following existing regulations. As such, the goal is to guide future practices when conducting or reviewing NHSR in an applied setting so that unethical practices do not bias the results.

应用环境中非人类受试者伦理研究的局限性。
伦理研究遵循众多规则和条例,以确保在收集和传播研究成果的过程中保护所有人类受试者。不过,人类受试者研究和非人类受试者研究(NHSR)之间往往存在重要区别。后者也可以被描述为非研究活动,即使涉及人类受试者,通常也会减少任何监督。尽管有必要在应用环境中开展合乎伦理的 NHSR 或非研究活动,但有几种方法可以利用这种判定来规避监管。特别是,出现问题的原因是,在应用环境中,几个关键功能中的一个或多个功能被混淆在一起,而在受控或实验环境中,这些功能是独立分隔的。这些职能包括1) 伦理监督;2) 资金;3) 执行;4) 同行评审。当前的讨论概述了应用环境中的 NHSR 如何使这些职能重叠,以及工作人员如何在遵守现有法规的同时扩展道德行为的界限。因此,讨论的目的是指导今后在应用环境中开展或审查 NHSR 时的做法,以免不道德的做法影响结果。
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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
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