Special Issue: Canadian Governance for Ethical Research Involving Humans
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dedication This double issue of Health Law Review is dedicated to memory of our friend and colleague T. Douglas Kinsella, CM, MD, FRCP. Doug Kinsella was a leader in effort to bring about reform of Canadian governance for research involving He founded and headed Office of Medical Bioethics at University of Calgary and served for years as Chair of University's Biomedical Research Ethics Board. As a founder of National Council on Bioethics of Research Involving Humans he led first (and only) systematic survey of treatment of human subjects by those working in Canadian medical schools. (1) In 1994 he became a member of Tri-Council Working Group on Ethics, which was charged by Presidents of Councils with responsibility of developing policies and guidelines to replace Councils' existing guidelines for research involving humans. (2) It was here that I came to know Doug very well especially as we served as co-members, along with Dr. Jean Joly, of Working Group's Editorial Committee. I do not believe that Working Group would ever have completed its task without Dr. Kinsella's insight, determination, and hard work. His deep commitment to highest principles of accountability and integrity along with depth of experience he brought as a physician, researcher and bioethicist were essential to production of Code of Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. (3) After we submitted Code to Council Presidents, Doug continued his involvement in governance issues. He was a member of my team when we prepared a state of art assessment of Canadian governance for research involving humans for Law Commission of Canada. (4) In that report, he wrote about one of his abiding concerns--the role of physician-researcher and need for effective governance of physician-researchers whether they were in research institutions or operating within their private offices. (5) In latter regard, he played a leading part in establishing a Research Ethics Board at Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons. To this day, Alberta remains only province where provincial regulatory body for physicians has taken effective responsibility for ensuring that all physicians receive ethical review of research called for in CMA Code of Ethics. (6) In 2002, I invited Doug to join small team that I organized for a research proposal on governance being prepared for CIHR. We were successful in that proposal. With support from CIHR one of major projects we undertook was to bring together scholars interested in governance of ethical health research involving humans, in order to prepare this special volume of Health Law Review. We scheduled a meeting for August 2004 at Whistler BC. It is with great sadness that I recall Doug contacting me in May to say that due to serious illness he would be unable to attend. He died on June 15, 2004. So it is to memory of Dr. T. Douglas Kinsella that we dedicate this publication. We are confident that theme of this special issue reflects a central concern of his professional career as a physician, medical researcher, and bioethicist. Introduction In August 2004 with help of research funding from CIHR, I brought together individuals who have contributed to this issue as well as others who were part of discussion. Because we met in Whistler, British Columbia, we playfully described ourselves as the Whistler Summit on Governance. We were a multi-disciplinary group with a wide range of perspectives on research ethics. Some of us have been intimately involved in formation of policy at international and national levels. Many of us have written on this subject matter before. Others were new to area. We came together with following objectives: * To consider positive and negative features of current governance in Canada for research involving humans * To propose new directions for such governance in areas identified at workshop * To produce articles on this topic for publication in a special issue of Health Law Review * To offer useful insights for those making or influencing policy in this area. …
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,032 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».