Science ethics as a bureaucratic problem : (Record no. 23549)
[ view plain ]
| 000 -LEADER | |
|---|---|
| fixed length control field | 02260naa a2200193uu 4500 |
| 001 - CONTROL NUMBER | |
| control field | 7052219271910 |
| 003 - CONTROL NUMBER IDENTIFIER | |
| control field | OSt |
| 005 - DATE AND TIME OF LATEST TRANSACTION | |
| control field | 20190211162926.0 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION | |
| fixed length control field | 070522s2007 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d |
| 999 ## - SYSTEM CONTROL NUMBERS (KOHA) | |
| Koha Dewey Subclass [OBSOLETE] | PHL2MARC21 1.1 |
| 041 ## - LANGUAGE CODE | |
| Language code of text/sound track or separate title | eng |
| 100 1# - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| 9 (RLIN) | 1399 |
| Personal name | Bozeman, Barry |
| 245 10 - TITLE STATEMENT | |
| Title | Science ethics as a bureaucratic problem : |
| Remainder of title | IRBs, rules, and failures of control |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. | |
| Place of publication, distribution, etc. | Dordrecht, Netherlands : |
| Name of publisher, distributor, etc. | Springer, |
| Date of publication, distribution, etc. | March 2007 |
| 520 3# - SUMMARY, ETC. | |
| Summary, etc. | Institutionalized science ethics refers to the statutory, professional and institution-based ethical standards that guide and constrain scientists' research work. The primary institution responsible for implementing institutionalized science ethics is the Institutional Review Board. We examine the limitations of IRBs and institutionalized science ethics, using bureaucratic theory and, especially, theory related to the development and enactment of rules. We suggest that due to the very character of rules-based systems, improvements in IRB outcomes are unlikely to be achieved through either more or better rules or even by bureaucratic reform. Instead, we suggest that improvements in human subject protection can best be advanced through increased participation. Ours is not a call for more participation by the general public but participation, via Participant Review Boards of persons who are eligible, by the protocols of the research in question, to serve as subjects. This provides a level of legitimacy and face validity that cannot be obtained by IRB affiliates, even by external representatives. In making these points, we review a recent science ethics controversy, the KKI/Johns Hopkins lead paint study. In spite of being approved by IRBs, the study resulted in a civil lawsuit that reached the Maryland Court of Appeals. The case illustrates the limits of institutionalized science ethics and the bureaucracies created for their enactment. The case also underscores the complex and equivocal nature of the ethical guidelines established under the National Research Act |
| 700 1# - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | HIRSCH, Paul |
| 9 (RLIN) | 31904 |
| 773 08 - HOST ITEM ENTRY | |
| Title | Policy Sciences |
| Related parts | 38, 4, p. 269-291 |
| Place, publisher, and date of publication | Dordrecht, Netherlands : Springer, March 2007 |
| International Standard Serial Number | ISSN 0032-2687 |
| Record control number | |
| 942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA) | |
| Koha item type | Periódico |
| 998 ## - LOCAL CONTROL INFORMATION (RLIN) | |
| -- | 20070522 |
| Operator's initials, OID (RLIN) | 1927^b |
| Cataloger's initials, CIN (RLIN) | Tiago |
| 998 ## - LOCAL CONTROL INFORMATION (RLIN) | |
| -- | 20070523 |
| Operator's initials, OID (RLIN) | 1539^b |
| Cataloger's initials, CIN (RLIN) | Zailton |
No items available.
