IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v3y2014i3p509-528d38843.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From Research “Involving” Humans to Research “Affecting” Humans: A Proposal for a Principled Expansion of Research Ethics’ Jurisdiction to Create Traction for a Philosophy of Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Madelaine Saginur

    (Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, Fauteux Hall, 57 Louis Pasteur Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada)

Abstract

The field of research ethics offers a new approach to addressing the issues created by the unchecked development of technology. Research ethics could make a contribution, both substantively and procedurally, to help create a framework for reviewing the social and political consequences of actual or proposed technological developments. This paper puts forth a proposal for a principled expansion of research ethics’ jurisdiction, specifically a move from “Research Involving Humans” to “Research Affecting Humans”, and undertakes a case study of “Web 2.0” to analyze whether a philosophy of technology based on research ethics might work.

Suggested Citation

  • Madelaine Saginur, 2014. "From Research “Involving” Humans to Research “Affecting” Humans: A Proposal for a Principled Expansion of Research Ethics’ Jurisdiction to Create Traction for a Philosophy of Technology," Laws, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:3:y:2014:i:3:p:509-528:d:38843
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/3/3/509/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/3/3/509/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guta, Adrian & Nixon, Stephanie A. & Wilson, Michael G., 2013. "Resisting the seduction of “ethics creep”: Using Foucault to surface complexity and contradiction in research ethics review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 301-310.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chiumento, Anna & Rahman, Atif & Frith, Lucy, 2020. "Writing to template: Researchers’ negotiation of procedural research ethics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).

    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:gam:jlawss:v:3:y:2014:i:3:p:509-528:d:38843. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.