Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Why IRBs should protect bystanders in human research

Bibliographic Data

ID21504038
AuthorsJonathan Kimmelman (0000-0003-1614-6779, Studies of Translation, Ethics, and Medicine (STREAM) Department of Biomedical Ethics McGill University Montreal Quebec Canada, corresponding author)
Year2020
Volume34
Issue9
Pages933-936
Publication date2020-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueBioethics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0269-9702 • E-ISSN: 1467-8519
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/bioe.12812
PMID32975817
OpenAlexW3088684043
LanguageEN

Many types of human research activities present risks and burdens to third parties (e.g., bystanders). Few human protection policies directly address the protection of research bystanders, though some address it in passing. In what follows, I re‐iterate reasons why bystanders are entitled to protections. I also argue that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are in the best position to signal to researchers and sponsors that bystanders should be protected in research. In some cases, IRB review would consist of evaluating bystander protection strategies directly; in other cases, this might entail merely certifying that another institutions, like a drug regulator, has taken adequate measures to protect the welfare of research bystanders

Business · Bystander effect · Human research · Political science · Public relations · Research ethics · Biomedical Ethics and Regulation · Ethics in Clinical Research · Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare · Psychology · Social Psychology

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOI
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae