{"title":"超越分类:细化卫生研究监管中主体和客体之间的关系。","authors":"Catriona McMillan, Edward Dove, Graeme Laurie, Emily Postan, Nayha Sethi, Annie Sorbie","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2021.1898314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, we argue that the relationship between 'subject' and 'object' is poorly understood in health research regulation (HRR), and that it is a fallacy to suppose that they can operate in separate, fixed silos. By seeking to perpetuate this fallacy, HRR risks, among other things, objectifying persons by paying insufficient attention to human subjectivity, and the experiences and interests related to being involved in research. We deploy the anthropological concept of liminality - concerned with processes of transformation and change over time - to emphasise the enduring connectedness between subject and object in these contexts. By these means, we posit that regulatory frameworks based on <i>processual regulation</i> can better recognise and encompass the fluidity and significance of these relationships, and so ground more securely the moral legitimacy and social licence for human health research.</p>","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"13 1","pages":"194-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898314","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond categorisation: refining the relationship between subjects and objects in health research regulation.\",\"authors\":\"Catriona McMillan, Edward Dove, Graeme Laurie, Emily Postan, Nayha Sethi, Annie Sorbie\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17579961.2021.1898314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this article, we argue that the relationship between 'subject' and 'object' is poorly understood in health research regulation (HRR), and that it is a fallacy to suppose that they can operate in separate, fixed silos. By seeking to perpetuate this fallacy, HRR risks, among other things, objectifying persons by paying insufficient attention to human subjectivity, and the experiences and interests related to being involved in research. We deploy the anthropological concept of liminality - concerned with processes of transformation and change over time - to emphasise the enduring connectedness between subject and object in these contexts. By these means, we posit that regulatory frameworks based on <i>processual regulation</i> can better recognise and encompass the fluidity and significance of these relationships, and so ground more securely the moral legitimacy and social licence for human health research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37639,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law, Innovation and Technology\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"194-222\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898314\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law, Innovation and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898314\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law, Innovation and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898314","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Beyond categorisation: refining the relationship between subjects and objects in health research regulation.
In this article, we argue that the relationship between 'subject' and 'object' is poorly understood in health research regulation (HRR), and that it is a fallacy to suppose that they can operate in separate, fixed silos. By seeking to perpetuate this fallacy, HRR risks, among other things, objectifying persons by paying insufficient attention to human subjectivity, and the experiences and interests related to being involved in research. We deploy the anthropological concept of liminality - concerned with processes of transformation and change over time - to emphasise the enduring connectedness between subject and object in these contexts. By these means, we posit that regulatory frameworks based on processual regulation can better recognise and encompass the fluidity and significance of these relationships, and so ground more securely the moral legitimacy and social licence for human health research.
期刊介绍:
Stem cell research, cloning, GMOs ... How do regulations affect such emerging technologies? What impact do new technologies have on law? And can we rely on technology itself as a regulatory tool? The meeting of law and technology is rapidly becoming an increasingly significant (and controversial) topic. Law, Innovation and Technology is, however, the only journal to engage fully with it, setting an innovative and distinctive agenda for lawyers, ethicists and policy makers. Spanning ICTs, biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, neurotechnologies, robotics and AI, it offers a unique forum for the highest level of reflection on this essential area.