You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 161 No. 7, April 9, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Commentary
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (15)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Medical Ethics
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Randomized Controlled Trial
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Moving From Compliance to Conscience

Why We Can and Should Improve on the Ethics of Clinical Research

Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:925-928.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

THE ETHICS of clinical research are long-standing; researchers confronted ethical issues long before the implementation of federal oversight and regulations1 and continue to be challenged by the sometimes fuzzy distinctions between ethically acceptable and ethically unacceptable research. New technologies (gene therapy, stem cell transplants, and bioartificial organs, to name a few) raise new ethical issues, but at the same time, so many of the issues that researchers must deal with are recurring. This is a time not only of great opportunity and promise for the pursuit of biomedical research, but also of great responsibility.

The recent surge in federal oversight activity in research on human subjects has been a stimulus for renewed attention to ethics in research, and heightened public awareness of research issues means that the system of research must be above reproach. The federal government's Office for Human Research Protections and Food and Drug Administration have closed down . . . [Full Text of this Article]

THE QUALITY OF INFORMED CONSENT


THE (MIS)PERCEPTIONS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
The Confusion Between Research and Therapy

The Concept of Therapeutic Misconception

The Blurring of the Roles of Physicians and Researchers


THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Informed Trust and the Financing of Biomedical Research
Sharp and Yarborough
J Law Med Ethics 2006;34:460-464.
 

The New Research Ethic: Will Oversight Requirements Sink Forensic Research?
Candilis et al.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2005;33:361-367.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Ethical and practical issues in conducting clinical trials in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis
Kavanaugh
Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:ii46-ii48.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Applying the Common Rule to Public Health Agencies: Questions and Tentative Answers About a Separate Regulatory Regime
Burris et al.
J Law Med Ethics 2003;31:638-653.
 

Self-Serving and Other-Serving: Matters of Trust and Intent
Mitchell
Nurs Sci Q 2002;15:288-293.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2001 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.