Ethics Governance
Ethics & Governance - Resources and Articles |
| Articles indexes: a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z | other | |
|
|
| Article - Abstract. To view full article click on the article title. | |
eMJA: Donald Chalmers and Philip Pettit, Towards a consensual culture in the ethical review of research Towards a consensual culture in the ethical review of research. Donald Chalmers and Philip Pettit, on behalf of the Australian Health Ethics Committee The Report of the Review of the Role and Functioning of Institutional Ethics Committees was submitted to the Minister for Health and Family Services in March 1996.1 It recommended, among other things, that the Statement on Human Experimentation, issued under the name of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in 1992, should be revised. A similar recommendation was made in the report by Dr Margaret Allers in 1994 into the collection, manufacture and injection of human growth hormone.2 The recommendation for a review of the Statement was approved by the Council in November 1996. The Australian Health Ethics Committee, a Principal Committee of the NHMRC, had for some time been discussing various aspects of the Statement on Human Experimentation and independently decided that the Statement should now be revised. The Committee's first consideration was the tone that the Statement should set for the ethical review of research. This article expresses the Committee's views on this matter. MJA 1998; 169: 79-82. The evolution of an ethic among those conducting research on humans has occurred in three stages. First, individual researchers developed a general sense of what was proper behaviour and what was improper behaviour in the pursuit of research goals - in particular, with regard to the treatment of research subjects. Full Article: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/jan19/chalmers/chalmers.html |
|
2006 Ethics-Governance.com |
|||