ELSI和科学哲学

M. Sagoff
{"title":"ELSI和科学哲学","authors":"M. Sagoff","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.312013.462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clinical studies that run over the Internet, if they are not supported or regulated by a federal agency, are generally not covered by the Common Rule, which protects (among other things) the privacy and confidentiality of information obtained from the human subjects of research. Instead, Internet-leveraged clinical studies improvise a variety of their own protocols to protect research subjects from \"informational risk.\" These protocols generally put less emphasis on the analysis of big data and more emphasis on the history of particular cases. The protocols chosen to manage informational risk might then reflect and reinforce assumptions about the philosophy of science and about the progress of medicine.","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"31 1","pages":"27-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ELSI and the Philosophy of Science\",\"authors\":\"M. Sagoff\",\"doi\":\"10.13021/G8PPPQ.312013.462\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Clinical studies that run over the Internet, if they are not supported or regulated by a federal agency, are generally not covered by the Common Rule, which protects (among other things) the privacy and confidentiality of information obtained from the human subjects of research. Instead, Internet-leveraged clinical studies improvise a variety of their own protocols to protect research subjects from \\\"informational risk.\\\" These protocols generally put less emphasis on the analysis of big data and more emphasis on the history of particular cases. The protocols chosen to manage informational risk might then reflect and reinforce assumptions about the philosophy of science and about the progress of medicine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82464,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"27-35\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.312013.462\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.312013.462","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

在互联网上进行的临床研究,如果没有得到联邦机构的支持或监管,通常不受共同规则的保护,共同规则保护(除其他事项外)从研究的人类受试者获得的信息的隐私和机密性。相反,利用互联网的临床研究即兴制定了各种自己的协议,以保护研究对象免受“信息风险”。这些协议通常不太强调对大数据的分析,而更强调特定病例的历史。选择用于管理信息风险的方案可能会反映和加强关于科学哲学和医学进步的假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ELSI and the Philosophy of Science
Clinical studies that run over the Internet, if they are not supported or regulated by a federal agency, are generally not covered by the Common Rule, which protects (among other things) the privacy and confidentiality of information obtained from the human subjects of research. Instead, Internet-leveraged clinical studies improvise a variety of their own protocols to protect research subjects from "informational risk." These protocols generally put less emphasis on the analysis of big data and more emphasis on the history of particular cases. The protocols chosen to manage informational risk might then reflect and reinforce assumptions about the philosophy of science and about the progress of medicine.
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