Why IRBs should protect bystanders in human research
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21504038 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jonathan Kimmelman (0000-0003-1614-6779, Studies of Translation, Ethics, and Medicine (STREAM) Department of Biomedical Ethics McGill University Montreal Quebec Canada, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue | 9 |
| Pages | 933-936 |
| Publication date | 2020-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Bioethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0269-9702 • E-ISSN: 1467-8519 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/bioe.12812 |
| PMID | 32975817 |
| OpenAlex | W3088684043 |
| Language | EN |
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 velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |