Sometimes a change to national policy isn’t enough to alter institutional practice – especially when that practice has been entrenched for a few decades and is wrapped in institutional risk. This New York Times story highlights why there’s so much chatter around the change to the US ‘Common Rule’.
.
But who gets to decide whether the experimental protocol — what subjects are asked to do and disclose — is appropriate and ethical? That question has been roiling the academic community since the Department of Health and Human Services’s Office for Human Research Protections revised its rules in January.
.
The revision exempts from oversight studies involving “benign behavioral interventions.” This was welcome news to economists, psychologists and sociologists who have long complained that they need not receive as much scrutiny as, say, a medical researcher.
.
Some Social Scientists Are Tired of Asking for Permission – The New York Times (Kate Murphy | May 2017)
Posted by saviorteam in Human Research Ethics on May 25, 2017
Keywords: Beneficence, Consent, Controversy/Scandal, Ethical review, Honesty, Human research ethics, Institutional responsibilities, International, News, Protection for participants, Psychology, Research ethics committees, Researcher responsibilities, Social Science
Keywords: Beneficence, Consent, Controversy/Scandal, Ethical review, Honesty, Human research ethics, Institutional responsibilities, International, News, Protection for participants, Psychology, Research ethics committees, Researcher responsibilities, Social Science
Related Reading
No Related Readings Found!
Related Links

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.