MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W202365784

Translating ethics into law: duties of care in health research involving humans.

2005· article· en· W202365784 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Susan Zimmerman

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEthics in Clinical Research
Établissements canadiensEngineers Without Borders Canada
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésResearch ethicsStatuteObligationDutyPolitical scienceCorporate governancePublic relationsLawDuty of careEngineering ethicsSociologyBusiness
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

the field of health research, good governance has two primary goals: to ensure that the research conducted is scientifically valid, and that it is conducted in an ethical manner, protecting the physical and psychological integrity of the research participant. Since the emergence of research ethics boards (REBs) in Canada, responsibility for good governance is too often conflated with the responsibility for research review. Ideally, however, good governance results from an assumption of obligations by all those engaged in the research enterprise. Research ethics boards are not the sole repository of this responsibility. As a recent statement by medical journal editors pointed out: In return for the altruism and trust that make clinical research possible, the research enterprise has an obligation to conduct research ethically and to report it honestly. (1) This statement applies not only to clinical research but equally to all types of research involving humans. The first goal of this paper is therefore to identify the actors who make up the research enterprise and, very briefly, to sketch the nature of the role that each of them may play in the good governance of research involving humans. Some of these obligations are set by statute or regulation, some by ethics policies or guidelines. I will then consider which of these ethical obligations may constitute a duty of care under the common law. (2) Finally, I will briefly discuss how ethics policies, guidelines and practices can be integrated into or adopted by the legal system through incorporation into statutes and regulations or by judicial interpretation. Through such integration, they can help to establish the standard of care that defines the nature and extent of these legal duties. The Research Enterprise For the purposes of this very brief article, I will simply list the range of actors in the research enterprise and sketch in point form some of their diverse obligations for the proper conduct of health research involving humans. This by no means exhaustive list permits a preliminary consideration of which of these obligations may form the basis for a legal duty of care. 1. The Researcher * Conducts the research, and is therefore directly responsible for the welfare of the participant. * Is responsible for conducting the research in accordance with the protocol as designed, and as approved by any review body; the researcher is therefore accountable not only to the participant but also to the designer of the protocol (if the researcher did not design it him/herself), to the sponsor of the research, to the review body, and to any regulatory body. 2. The Research Sponsor * Funds the research and is therefore responsible for ensuring that the research is both scientifically and ethically valid, respects applicable laws and regulations and follows relevant policy guidelines. * Where the sponsor is a public body, it must also consider whether the proposed research serves the public interest. * Sponsors have an obligation to make the results of trials publicly available, so that the scientific community and ultimately, society in general, may benefit from the knowledge acquired through the unpaid participation of members of the public. 3. The Research Institution * Institutions where research involving humans is conducted have an obligation to the participants to ensure that the research is both valid and ethical; they also owe this obligation to the general public, as trust in the review process builds faith in the research enterprise, without which many people would not agree to participate in research. * Research institutions also have an obligation to ensure that their employees and those carrying out research on their premises, or using their name (and reputation) conduct themselves in accordance with institutional policies and ethical standards. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,104
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesIntégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,974
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,551

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1040,114
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,128
Communication savante0,0190,019
Science ouverte0,0030,015
Intégrité de la recherche0,0260,022
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,765
Tête enseignante GPT0,628
Écart entre enseignants0,137 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2005
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMed→Même sujetEthics in Clinical Research→Travaux en français237 207→