Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a young man named Jesse Gelsinger died in 1999 as a result of his participation in a gene transfer research study, regulatory agencies in the United States began to take a closer look at what was happening in medical research. The resulting temporary shutdown of some of the most prestigious academic research centres confirmed what various recent reports in the United States as well as Canada had claimed; that the current system of regulatory oversight was in need of improvement.Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research uses the Gelinger case as a touchstone, illustrating how three major aspects of that case - the flaws in the regulatory system, conflicts of interest, and legal liability - embody the major challenges in the current medical research environment. Editors Trudo Lemmens and Duff R. Waring, along with a host of top scholars in the field, demonstrate why existing models of research review and human subject protection are in need of improvement, and how more stringent regulatory and legal means can be used to strengthen the protection of research subjects and the integrity of research.The contributors also address conflicts of interest, paying particular attention to the growing commercialization of medical research, as well as the legal liability of scientific investigators, research institutions, and governmental agencies. Legal liability is a growing concern in medical research and this fascinating study is, in the international context, one of the first to explore the liability of various parties involved in the research enterprise
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".