桌面法律研究与人类伦理检讨:正当化与“伦理蠕变”问题。

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW
Journal of Law and Medicine Pub Date : 2025-06-01
Cameron Stewart, Christopher Rudge, George F Tomossy, Ian Kerridge
{"title":"桌面法律研究与人类伦理检讨:正当化与“伦理蠕变”问题。","authors":"Cameron Stewart, Christopher Rudge, George F Tomossy, Ian Kerridge","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This column discusses whether desktop legal research must be reviewed by a human research ethics committee (HREC). We have been made aware that some HRECs have interpreted the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research as compelling legal researchers to seek ethics review for desktop legal research. We argue that this literal interpretation of the National Statement erroneously treats desktop legal research as \"human research\". Including desktop legal research in the definition of \"human research\" damages the public interest. We call on the Council of Australian Law Deans and the authors of the National Statement to make it clear that HREC review is not required for desktop legal research.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"32 1","pages":"36-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Desktop Legal Research and Human Ethics Review: Problems of Juridification and \\\"Ethics-Creep\\\".\",\"authors\":\"Cameron Stewart, Christopher Rudge, George F Tomossy, Ian Kerridge\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This column discusses whether desktop legal research must be reviewed by a human research ethics committee (HREC). We have been made aware that some HRECs have interpreted the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research as compelling legal researchers to seek ethics review for desktop legal research. We argue that this literal interpretation of the National Statement erroneously treats desktop legal research as \\\"human research\\\". Including desktop legal research in the definition of \\\"human research\\\" damages the public interest. We call on the Council of Australian Law Deans and the authors of the National Statement to make it clear that HREC review is not required for desktop legal research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"36-48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本专栏讨论桌面法律研究是否必须由人类研究伦理委员会(HREC)审查。我们已经意识到,一些HRECs将《人类研究伦理行为国家声明》解释为强迫法律研究人员为桌面法律研究寻求伦理审查。我们认为,这种对国家声明的字面解释错误地将桌面法律研究视为“人类研究”。将桌面法律研究纳入“人类研究”的定义损害了公共利益。我们呼吁澳大利亚法律院长委员会和国家声明的作者明确表示,桌面法律研究不需要HREC审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Desktop Legal Research and Human Ethics Review: Problems of Juridification and "Ethics-Creep".

This column discusses whether desktop legal research must be reviewed by a human research ethics committee (HREC). We have been made aware that some HRECs have interpreted the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research as compelling legal researchers to seek ethics review for desktop legal research. We argue that this literal interpretation of the National Statement erroneously treats desktop legal research as "human research". Including desktop legal research in the definition of "human research" damages the public interest. We call on the Council of Australian Law Deans and the authors of the National Statement to make it clear that HREC review is not required for desktop legal research.

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
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信