Below we highlight research, analysis, background and commentary on Consumer Protection. Search PPI Find the public policy institute content you are looking for by entering in search terms below. News Alerts Sign up for alerts on the latest research, events and videos on policy issues.
A great deal of progress has been made in recent decades in changing the culture of research to incorporate more fully this ethical responsibility into protocol design and implementation. In the s and s, a series of scandals concerning social science research and medical research conducted with the sick and the illiterate underlined the need to systematically and rigorously protect individuals in research Beecher ; Faden and Beauchamp ; Jones ; Katz ; Tuskegee Syphilis Study Ad Hoc Advisory Panel It is a patchwork arrangement associated with the receipt of federal research funding or the regulatory review and approval of new drugs and devices.
In addition, it depends on the voluntary cooperation of investigators, research institutions, and professional societies across a wide array of research disciplines.
Increasingly, the current system is being viewed as uneven in its ability to simultaneously protect the rights and welfare of research participants and promote ethically responsible research. On the one hand, the system is too narrow in scope to protect all participants, while on the other hand, it is often so unnecessarily bureaucratic that it stifles responsible research.
Although some reforms by particular federal agencies and professional societies are under way,1 it will take the efforts of both the executive and legislative branches of government to put in place a streamlined, effective, responsive, and comprehensive system that achieves the protection of all human participants and encourages ethically responsible research.
Clearly, scientific investigation has extended and enhanced the quality of life and increased our understanding of ourselves, our relationships with others, and the natural world.
For many citizens, scientific discoveries have alleviated the suffering caused by disease or disability. Nonetheless, the prospect of gaining such valuable scientific knowledge need not and should not be pursued at the expense of human rights or human dignity.
The research community has, in large part, supported the two essential protections for human participants: This report views the oversight system as a whole, provides a rationale for change, and offers an interrelated set of recommendations to improve the protection of human participants and enable the oversight system to operate more efficiently.
Respecting Research Participants Whether testing a new medical treatment, interviewing people about their personal habits, studying how people think and feel, or observing how they live within groups, research seeks to learn something new about the human condition.
Unfortunately, history has also demonstrated that researchers sometimes treat participants not as persons but as mere objects of study. There it is performed on inanimate objects, and this raises no moral questions. But as soon as animate, feeling beings become the subject of experiment How, then, should people be studied?
The principles underlying the Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research Belmont Report National Commission have served for over 20 years as a leading source of guidance regarding the ethical standards that should govern research with human participants in the United States.
The Belmont Report emphasized that research must respect the autonomy of participants, must be fair in both conception and implementation, and must maximize potential benefits while minimizing possible harms. But although the Belmont Report is rightly hailed as a key source of guidance on informed consent, assessment of risk, and the injustice of placing individuals and groups in situations of vulnerability, the principles the report espouses and the regulations adopted as federal policy 20 years ago have often fallen short in achieving their overarching goal of protecting human research participants.
Moreover, since the Belmont Report was published, additional concerns have arisen that require much-needed attention today. Ensuring Independent Review of Risks and Potential Benefits A central protection for research participants is the guarantee that someone other than the investigator will assess the risks of the proposed research.
No one should participate in research unless independent review concludes that the risks are reasonable in relation to the potential benefits. Independent review of research is essential because it improves the likelihood that decisions are made free from inappropriate influences that could distort the central task of evaluating risks and potential benefits.The proposed federal office should initiate a process in which representatives from various disciplines and professions (e.g., social science, humanities, business, public health, and health services) contribute to the development of the definition and the list of research activities subject to the oversight system.
Start studying Sociology Test 1. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Social critics and reform politicians appeared on the scene relatively early, voicing concerns about what they saw as economic exploitation and political corruption surrounding them.
And well before , labor organizers and agrarian reformers experimented with various organizational and political approaches to increasing their own power.
The professionalization of social welfare services Public and private providers Forms of social welfare assistance Analyze the social welfare policy issues presented in a current analysis of a topic presented in class, or a related topic.
The. Aug 13, · Patient-centered Care and Medical Social Media. The phenomenon of social media and its increased importance in the private as well as in the public sector show there are many potentials even in healthcare settings enabling patient-centered care.
social problem in which corporate media undermine democracy. I explore this latter issue with a study of the media in the United States over the past two decades and how corporate media have failed to address crucial social problems and have themselves become a social problem.