制定监管管理框架

E. Dove
{"title":"制定监管管理框架","authors":"E. Dove","doi":"10.4337/9781788975353.00011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the previous chapter, I examined the ways in which certain actors in health research—particularly RECs—are affected by regulation, and similarly, the ways in which they can affect regulation. The findings revealed that research ethics review is an essential component of health research regulation and the ethics review system overall appears to be operating relatively smoothly, at least in comparison to previous decades. At the same time, though, the evidence suggests that several regulatory components can be refined. In this chapter, I unpack further the significance of the liminality of RECs and the ability of actors within the health research regulatory space to serve as ‘regulatory stewards’. I do so by taking up the normative dimension of anthropology of regulation, suggesting a model of what a regulatory framework for health research oversight ought to look like if it were to incorporate the findings from this empirical investigation. This would include explicit endorsement of regulatory stewardship and a charting of how protection and promotion can and should work together in regulatory design and practice. This proposed framework has application at two levels, which can be seen as both top-down and bottom-up: (1) the government and managing regulators (e.g. Department of Health and Social Care, HRA), and (2) RECs and regulatees (e.g. researchers, sponsors, institutions). As the evidence in Chapter 5 indicates, RECs are embedded in multiple overlapping, interconnecting regulatory spaces, yet their roles and the roles of other actors are not always manifest in regulation. Further, the conversations between regulators, namely between RECs and the HRA, can be sporadic and at times less effective as compared to the conversations between regulators and regulatees (here, being RECs and researchers). This can cause disconnected spaces to appear within a given regulatory space where hazards may occur. A reformulated framework could work to improve regulatory conversations between actors, provide ongoing","PeriodicalId":351584,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Stewardship of Health Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Charting a framework for regulatory stewardship\",\"authors\":\"E. Dove\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/9781788975353.00011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the previous chapter, I examined the ways in which certain actors in health research—particularly RECs—are affected by regulation, and similarly, the ways in which they can affect regulation. The findings revealed that research ethics review is an essential component of health research regulation and the ethics review system overall appears to be operating relatively smoothly, at least in comparison to previous decades. At the same time, though, the evidence suggests that several regulatory components can be refined. In this chapter, I unpack further the significance of the liminality of RECs and the ability of actors within the health research regulatory space to serve as ‘regulatory stewards’. I do so by taking up the normative dimension of anthropology of regulation, suggesting a model of what a regulatory framework for health research oversight ought to look like if it were to incorporate the findings from this empirical investigation. This would include explicit endorsement of regulatory stewardship and a charting of how protection and promotion can and should work together in regulatory design and practice. This proposed framework has application at two levels, which can be seen as both top-down and bottom-up: (1) the government and managing regulators (e.g. Department of Health and Social Care, HRA), and (2) RECs and regulatees (e.g. researchers, sponsors, institutions). As the evidence in Chapter 5 indicates, RECs are embedded in multiple overlapping, interconnecting regulatory spaces, yet their roles and the roles of other actors are not always manifest in regulation. Further, the conversations between regulators, namely between RECs and the HRA, can be sporadic and at times less effective as compared to the conversations between regulators and regulatees (here, being RECs and researchers). This can cause disconnected spaces to appear within a given regulatory space where hazards may occur. A reformulated framework could work to improve regulatory conversations between actors, provide ongoing\",\"PeriodicalId\":351584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regulatory Stewardship of Health Research\",\"volume\":\"26 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/10.4337/9781788975353.00011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulatory Stewardship of Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788975353.00011","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

在前一章中,我考察了健康研究中的某些参与者——尤其是rec——受到监管影响的方式,以及他们能够影响监管的方式。研究结果表明,研究伦理审查是卫生研究监管的重要组成部分,伦理审查系统总体上运行相对平稳,至少与前几十年相比是这样。但与此同时,有证据表明,一些监管成分可以得到完善。在本章中,我进一步揭示了rec的局限性的重要性,以及健康研究监管空间内行为者作为“监管管家”的能力。为此,我从监管人类学的规范维度入手,提出了一种模型,如果要将这一实证调查的结果纳入其中,那么卫生研究监管的监管框架应该是什么样子。这将包括对监管管理的明确认可,以及制定一份图表,说明在监管设计和实践中,保护和促进如何能够而且应该协同工作。这个提议的框架有两个层面的应用,可以看作是自上而下和自下而上的:(1)政府和管理监管机构(例如卫生和社会保障部,HRA), (2) RECs和监管机构(例如研究人员、赞助者、机构)。正如第5章的证据所表明的那样,区域经济中心嵌入在多个重叠、相互关联的监管空间中,但它们的角色和其他参与者的角色并不总是在监管中体现出来。此外,监管机构之间的对话,即rec和HRA之间的对话,可能是零星的,有时与监管机构和被监管机构之间的对话(这里是rec和研究人员)相比,效率更低。这可能导致在可能发生危险的给定监管空间内出现不连接的空间。重新制定的框架可以改善参与者之间的监管对话,提供持续的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Charting a framework for regulatory stewardship
In the previous chapter, I examined the ways in which certain actors in health research—particularly RECs—are affected by regulation, and similarly, the ways in which they can affect regulation. The findings revealed that research ethics review is an essential component of health research regulation and the ethics review system overall appears to be operating relatively smoothly, at least in comparison to previous decades. At the same time, though, the evidence suggests that several regulatory components can be refined. In this chapter, I unpack further the significance of the liminality of RECs and the ability of actors within the health research regulatory space to serve as ‘regulatory stewards’. I do so by taking up the normative dimension of anthropology of regulation, suggesting a model of what a regulatory framework for health research oversight ought to look like if it were to incorporate the findings from this empirical investigation. This would include explicit endorsement of regulatory stewardship and a charting of how protection and promotion can and should work together in regulatory design and practice. This proposed framework has application at two levels, which can be seen as both top-down and bottom-up: (1) the government and managing regulators (e.g. Department of Health and Social Care, HRA), and (2) RECs and regulatees (e.g. researchers, sponsors, institutions). As the evidence in Chapter 5 indicates, RECs are embedded in multiple overlapping, interconnecting regulatory spaces, yet their roles and the roles of other actors are not always manifest in regulation. Further, the conversations between regulators, namely between RECs and the HRA, can be sporadic and at times less effective as compared to the conversations between regulators and regulatees (here, being RECs and researchers). This can cause disconnected spaces to appear within a given regulatory space where hazards may occur. A reformulated framework could work to improve regulatory conversations between actors, provide ongoing
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
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