almost all protocols would be submitted in a form that would be acceptable with, at most, minor revisions. Yet his analysis depends on unsupported claims like 'If all researchers were ideally rational and knowledgeable. Helps to provide a credible social assurance to the American people that social institutions, funded by their tax dollars and empowered to advance their health and well-being, work to: respect and affirm the moral equality of all community members prevent the arbitrary exercise of social authority and help to create a “market” in which the diverse stakeholders, often working to advance diverse ends, collaborate in a way that advances the common good. The most armchair-bound piece seems to be Alex John London's ' A Non-Paternalistic Model of Research Ethics and Oversight: Assessing the Benefits of Prospective Review.' Relying on such classic thought experiments as Hardin's 'Tragedy of the Commons' and Akerlof's 'Market for 'Lemons,'' he claims that IRB review The contributions reinforced my sense that the IRB debate is in part a contest between evidence-based approaches and armchair ethics.

For the Common Good: Philosophical Foundations of Research Ethics, by Alex John London, comes to the rescue, offering an eloquently structured, amply justified, and ultimately persuasive theoretical foundation on which many necessary repairs can now be built.Last week I promised some comments on the Winter 2012 issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, which features a symposium entitled ' Research Ethics: Reexamining Key Concerns.'

It holds together well enough, but many dedicated folks have long struggled to MacGyver rickety spots of theory and practice known to be problematic. Why? Because everyone who has tried to figure out how research ethics and regulatory compliance fit together, or tried to keep up with the vast array of regulations, guidance documents, educational materials, and scholarly literature, already knows that the human research protections system is mined with contradictions, gaps, and confusions. Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email this Post March-April 2023ĪBSTRACT Should research ethics scholars, clinical investigators, and human research professionals read a thick book by a moral philosopher on the foundations of research ethics? Absolutely.

For the Common Good by Alex John London