People with Disabilities in Human Subjects Research: A History of Exploitation, a Problem of Exclusion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia R. Ouellette
Keyword(s):  
Human Subjects ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
History Of

The Ethics of Human Subjects Protection in Research

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Drewry
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Older Men ◽  
Concentration Camp ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Social Work Theory ◽  
History Of ◽  
Protection Of Human Subjects ◽  
Theoretical Foundations

This article explores the evolution of research ethics in the protection of human subjects. Included in the examination of research ethics are a brief history of twentieth-century critical incidents in human subjects research, a review of formal efforts to define the values and principles of research ethics, theoretical foundations of ethical research, and relevance to contemporary social work theory, practice, and education.Wisdom is sold in the desolate marketWhere none come to buy.—William BlakeGermany, 1948—Rudolph Helwig sits uncomfortably in the witness chair at the trial of accused Nazi scientists in Nuremberg. He is a young man, barely into his twenties, but he wears a look of perpetual fear upon his face. Helwig is afraid right now, and ashamed. Everyone in the courtroom is watching him. The prosecutor approaches the witness stand. Helwig's eyes dart to the defendants' bench, where rows of older men sit, drowsy and unperturbed. The prosecutor asks Helwig why he had been sent to Ravensbruck concentration camp in 1943. Helwig doesn't know. He is asked if he is mentally retarded. Helwig doesn't know. One of the older men smiles. The prosecutor asks Helwig why he was chosen for Ravensbruck's sterilization experiments. This Helwig knows, “I suppose it was because I could not defend myself.”

scholarly journals SoTL and the Institutional Review Board: Considerations before navigating the application process for classroom research in higher education

2014 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn E. Linder ◽  
E. Deborah Elek ◽  
Lucia Calderon
Keyword(s):  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
History Of ◽  
Research Protections ◽  
Faculty Developer ◽  
Research Compliance

One of the more challenging areas of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) research can be navigating the components of human subjects research protections implemented by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The authors of this article, a faculty developer and a current and former research compliance coordinator, discuss the history of IRB in relation to SoTL research and explicate some of the foundational components of IRB protocols for SoTL projects. In particular, the authors explore what constitutes “research” for SoTL projects, explain the different IRB types of review, and offer some sample SoTL projects with respect to their IRB implications.

Historical Foundations

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-24
Author(s):  
Steven S. Coughlin
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Middle Ages ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Health It ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
History Of ◽  
Public Health Movement

This chapter considers the history of the rise of ethical concerns in the public health movement and epidemiology, which is the study of the distribution and determinants of disease in human populations. It explains that epidemiology is a basic science in public health. It also provides an overview of early developments in public health and ethics. The chapter looks at recent developments, including the origins of bioethics, regulatory safeguards for human subjects research, public health ethics, and contemporary epidemiological ethics. It begins with the end of the Middle Ages, wherein few advances were made in public health except for the control of a very limited number of communicable diseases achieved through the segregation and quarantine of persons thought to be infectious.

The Patient in Patient Safety: Contemporary Issues, From COVID-19 to Citizen Science

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 301-303
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Lerner Papautsky ◽  
Richard J. Holden ◽  
Rupa S. Valdez ◽  
Jordan Hill ◽  
Janetta Brown
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Research Strategies ◽  
Face To Face

In the 4th panel on the topic of The Patient in Patient Safety, we highlighted topics of current relevance and facilitated a reflection session. The objective was to highlight the ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted patient ergonomics research and work, with particular focus on safety. After a topic overview, panelists presented their work on overcoming challenges to human subjects research created by the suspension of face-to-face activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. A facilitated reflection and brainstorming session using Miro followed. We used questions to elicit examples of patient and caregiver roles in safety during the pandemic and research strategies and challenges. These questions were also distributed on social media prior to the event. The panel served as an opportunity to share lessons learned.

scholarly journals Human Subjects Requirements and Economic Education Researchers

2007 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane S. Lopus ◽  
Paul W. Grimes ◽  
William E. Becker ◽  
Rodney A. Pearson
Keyword(s):  
Human Subjects ◽  
Economic Education ◽  
Opportunity Costs ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Web Based ◽  
American Universities ◽  
Net Benefits ◽  
Low Levels

This paper presents the results of a web-based survey of economic educators who were asked about their knowledge and experience with human subjects research and the mandated federal protocols that govern such research at most American universities. The results indicate that while economic education researchers are experienced in conducting human subjects research and are aware of the federal regulations, they are not well informed about key details of the regulations. They are skeptical of the net benefits of the mandated protocols because of the perceived discouraging burdens of the paperwork that rarely result in significant modifications of their research projects. The authors conclude that recent calls for modifications to the federal regulations for classroom-based research projects may be justified given the opportunity costs of adhering to the regulations compared to the relatively low levels of perceived benefits.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document