Understanding bureaucracy in health science ethics

Toward a better institutional review board

Barry Bozeman, Catherine P Slade, Paul Hirsch

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Research involving human participants continues to grow dramatically, fueled by advances in medical technology, globalization of research, and financial and professional incentives. This creates increasing opportunities for ethical errors with devastating effects. The typical professional and policy response to calamities involving human participants in research is to layer on more ethical guidelines or strictures. We used a recent case - the Johns Hopkins University/Kennedy Kreiger Institute Lead Paint Study - to examine lessons learned since the Tuskegee Syphilis Study about the role of institutionalized science ethics in the protection of human participants in research. We address the role of the institutional review board as the focal point for policy attention.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1549-1556
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican journal of public health
Volume99
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2009

Fingerprint

Research Ethics Committees
Ethics
Health
Research
Internationality
Paint
Syphilis
Motivation
Pathologic Constriction
Guidelines
Technology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Understanding bureaucracy in health science ethics : Toward a better institutional review board. / Bozeman, Barry; Slade, Catherine P; Hirsch, Paul.

In: American journal of public health, Vol. 99, No. 9, 01.09.2009, p. 1549-1556.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{0c672a05e3f74bdab70a8ade073d0e1e,
title = "Understanding bureaucracy in health science ethics: Toward a better institutional review board",
abstract = "Research involving human participants continues to grow dramatically, fueled by advances in medical technology, globalization of research, and financial and professional incentives. This creates increasing opportunities for ethical errors with devastating effects. The typical professional and policy response to calamities involving human participants in research is to layer on more ethical guidelines or strictures. We used a recent case - the Johns Hopkins University/Kennedy Kreiger Institute Lead Paint Study - to examine lessons learned since the Tuskegee Syphilis Study about the role of institutionalized science ethics in the protection of human participants in research. We address the role of the institutional review board as the focal point for policy attention.",
author = "Barry Bozeman and Slade, {Catherine P} and Paul Hirsch",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2105/AJPH.2008.152389",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "99",
pages = "1549--1556",
journal = "American Journal of Public Health",
issn = "0090-0036",
publisher = "American Public Health Association Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding bureaucracy in health science ethics

T2 - Toward a better institutional review board

AU - Bozeman, Barry

AU - Slade, Catherine P

AU - Hirsch, Paul

PY - 2009/9/1

Y1 - 2009/9/1

N2 - Research involving human participants continues to grow dramatically, fueled by advances in medical technology, globalization of research, and financial and professional incentives. This creates increasing opportunities for ethical errors with devastating effects. The typical professional and policy response to calamities involving human participants in research is to layer on more ethical guidelines or strictures. We used a recent case - the Johns Hopkins University/Kennedy Kreiger Institute Lead Paint Study - to examine lessons learned since the Tuskegee Syphilis Study about the role of institutionalized science ethics in the protection of human participants in research. We address the role of the institutional review board as the focal point for policy attention.

AB - Research involving human participants continues to grow dramatically, fueled by advances in medical technology, globalization of research, and financial and professional incentives. This creates increasing opportunities for ethical errors with devastating effects. The typical professional and policy response to calamities involving human participants in research is to layer on more ethical guidelines or strictures. We used a recent case - the Johns Hopkins University/Kennedy Kreiger Institute Lead Paint Study - to examine lessons learned since the Tuskegee Syphilis Study about the role of institutionalized science ethics in the protection of human participants in research. We address the role of the institutional review board as the focal point for policy attention.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=69049092740&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=69049092740&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2105/AJPH.2008.152389

DO - 10.2105/AJPH.2008.152389

M3 - Review article

VL - 99

SP - 1549

EP - 1556

JO - American Journal of Public Health

JF - American Journal of Public Health

SN - 0090-0036

IS - 9

ER -