IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2008.152389_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding bureaucracy in health science ethics: Toward a better institutional review board

Author

Listed:
  • Bozeman, B.
  • Slade, C.
  • Hirsch, P.

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Bozeman, B. & Slade, C. & Hirsch, P., 2009. "Understanding bureaucracy in health science ethics: Toward a better institutional review board," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(9), pages 1549-1556.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2008.152389_3
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.152389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2008.152389
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2008.152389?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nelson, John P., 2023. "Differential “progressibility” in human know-how: A conceptual overview," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2008.152389_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.