The Belmont Report doesn’t need reform, our moral imagination does

In 1974, the United States Congress asked a question prompting a national conversation about ethics: which ethical principles should govern research involving human participants? To embark on an answer, Congress passed the National Research Act, and charged this task to the newly established National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Commission’s mandate was modest however, the results were anything but. The outcome was The Belmont Report: a trio of principles - respect for persons, beneficence, and justice - serving as an ethical compass for scientists, researchers, and institutional review boards (IRBs). Almost 50 years later, the utility, legacy, and ingenuity of The Belmont Report continues to be both admired and challenged. Critics argue that Belmont is not fit for the 21st century, while supporters praise Belmont for its enduring wisdom. The goal of this paper is to equip IRB practitioners with the tools necessary to maximally interpret The Belmont Report and meaningfully engage in ethical analysis that reconsiders outmoded legacy thinking and fixed decision-making. Through historical and contextual reflection, this paper describes how IRB practitioners can contemporize review of ethical human research using their moral imagination – a skill found at the intersection of creativity, deliberation, and empathy

Political science · Psychoanalysis · Sociology · Healthcare cost, quality, practices · Healthcare Quality and Management · Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare · Psychology · Social Psychology

• Ethics and Equity

  Open Access•Jana Kuhnt, Lennart Kaplan et al.•World Development Perspectives•2025

  Incluir item

• The issue of identity is a thorn in the flesh

  Open Access•Blessing Tendai Baloyi, Lucia Munongi•African Identities•2025

  Incluir item

• The Birth of Bioethics

  Albert R Jonsen•The birth of bioethics•1998

  Incluir item

• Human- versus Artificial Intelligence

  Open Access•J E Korteling, G C van de Boer-Visschedijk et al.•Frontiers in Artificial…•2021

  Incluir item

• A Critique of Principlism

  K Danner Clouser, Bernard Gert•Journal of Medicine and Philosophy•1990

  Incluir item

• Revisiting respect for persons

  Open Access•Shreya Subramani, Nikola Biller-Andorno et al.•Medicine Health Care and Philosophy•2022

  Incluir item

• An Ethics Framework for a Learning Health Care System

  Open Access•Ruth Faden, Ruth R Faden et al.•The Hastings Center Report•2013

  Incluir item

• Revisiting the Belmont Report

  Wesley J Smith•The Hastings Center Report•2001

  Incluir item

• A Sociological Account of the Growth of Principlism

  John H Evans•The Hastings Center Report•2000

  Incluir item

• Ethics Regulation in Social Computing Research

  Open Access•Jessica Vitak, Nicholas Proferes et al.•Journal of Empirical Research on…•2017

  Incluir item

• Bureaucracies of Mass Deception

  Open Access•Charles L Bosk, Raymond G De Vries•The Annals of the American…•2004

  Incluir item

• The Belmont Report at 40

  Eli Y Adashi, LEROY WALTERS et al.•American Journal of Public Health•2018

  Incluir item

• Re-Conceptualizing the Belmont Report

  Nancy Shore•Journal of Community Practice•2006

  Incluir item

• Big data and Belmont

  Open Access•Remy Stewart•Big Data & Society•2021

  Incluir item