Lainie Friedman Ross
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199273287
- eISBN:
- 9780191603655
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199273286.003.0010
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
This chapter examines the arguments for and against conducting biomedical and behavioral research in schools; whether additional human subject protections are necessary; and whose consent is ...
More
This chapter examines the arguments for and against conducting biomedical and behavioral research in schools; whether additional human subject protections are necessary; and whose consent is necessary and how it should be procured. It is argued that while schools are a tempting venue to do biomedical and behavioral research, parents, students, teachers, school officials, researchers, and institutional review boards need to be sensitive to the unique problems that such research may raise. Schools should have written policies that address the need to protect human subjects when research is done in the school setting. Minimum guidelines for schools are presented.Less
This chapter examines the arguments for and against conducting biomedical and behavioral research in schools; whether additional human subject protections are necessary; and whose consent is necessary and how it should be procured. It is argued that while schools are a tempting venue to do biomedical and behavioral research, parents, students, teachers, school officials, researchers, and institutional review boards need to be sensitive to the unique problems that such research may raise. Schools should have written policies that address the need to protect human subjects when research is done in the school setting. Minimum guidelines for schools are presented.
Mary Briody Mahowald
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780195176179
- eISBN:
- 9780199786558
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195176170.003.0013
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Feminist Philosophy
Cases illustrating the exclusion of women in biomedical research, experimental treatment and maternal fetal surgery, human reproductive cloning, and embryonic stem cell research are presented. For ...
More
Cases illustrating the exclusion of women in biomedical research, experimental treatment and maternal fetal surgery, human reproductive cloning, and embryonic stem cell research are presented. For each topic, empirical and theoretical factors are discussed from an “egalitarian perspective” that imputes privileged status to the standpoint of those who are “nondominant”. Implications of different positions about moral status of embryos and fetuses, and about people born with disabilities are also considered.Less
Cases illustrating the exclusion of women in biomedical research, experimental treatment and maternal fetal surgery, human reproductive cloning, and embryonic stem cell research are presented. For each topic, empirical and theoretical factors are discussed from an “egalitarian perspective” that imputes privileged status to the standpoint of those who are “nondominant”. Implications of different positions about moral status of embryos and fetuses, and about people born with disabilities are also considered.
Renée C. Fox and Judith P. Swazey
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780195365559
- eISBN:
- 9780199851881
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195365559.003.0012
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
Bioethics has been argued to be not only about intellectual or biomedical ethical issues, but also about biomedical research, health care, and the values and beliefs of the American society. However ...
More
Bioethics has been argued to be not only about intellectual or biomedical ethical issues, but also about biomedical research, health care, and the values and beliefs of the American society. However culture wars between the liberals and conservatives have inched their way into bioethics. This chapter discusses the association of culture wars to bioethics.Less
Bioethics has been argued to be not only about intellectual or biomedical ethical issues, but also about biomedical research, health care, and the values and beliefs of the American society. However culture wars between the liberals and conservatives have inched their way into bioethics. This chapter discusses the association of culture wars to bioethics.
Philip Bielby
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199231461
- eISBN:
- 9780191723858
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231461.003.0009
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health, Epidemiology
A particular challenge for consent in biomedical research is the participation of adults with mental disorder or intellectual disability to a degree that impinges on but does not necessarily erode ...
More
A particular challenge for consent in biomedical research is the participation of adults with mental disorder or intellectual disability to a degree that impinges on but does not necessarily erode decisional competence. This challenge is emphasized by recent developments in neuroscience which have reinvigorated interest in biomedical research with cognitively vulnerable human participants, particularly research into the origins and treatment of mental disorder. This chapter argues that we can best understand the scope and limits of consent as a ‘procedural’ principle of empowerment. It grounds this argument in a rationalist moral theory of human (or agency) rights devised by Alan Gewirth (1978). Drawing on the recent work of Gewirthian legal theorists Beyleveld and Brownsword (2004 and 2007), it offers a defence of the ethical significance of consent as a procedural human rights value, which does not in itself constitute a substantive human right.Less
A particular challenge for consent in biomedical research is the participation of adults with mental disorder or intellectual disability to a degree that impinges on but does not necessarily erode decisional competence. This challenge is emphasized by recent developments in neuroscience which have reinvigorated interest in biomedical research with cognitively vulnerable human participants, particularly research into the origins and treatment of mental disorder. This chapter argues that we can best understand the scope and limits of consent as a ‘procedural’ principle of empowerment. It grounds this argument in a rationalist moral theory of human (or agency) rights devised by Alan Gewirth (1978). Drawing on the recent work of Gewirthian legal theorists Beyleveld and Brownsword (2004 and 2007), it offers a defence of the ethical significance of consent as a procedural human rights value, which does not in itself constitute a substantive human right.
Jason E. Glenn
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2016
- ISBN:
- 9781781381724
- eISBN:
- 9781781382257
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Liverpool University Press
- DOI:
- 10.5949/liverpool/9781781381724.003.0005
- Subject:
- Literature, Criticism/Theory
This chapter traces and analyzes the history of human subject research and its role in the production of knowledge for biomedical use. It argues that the historic use of subjugated/condemned and ...
More
This chapter traces and analyzes the history of human subject research and its role in the production of knowledge for biomedical use. It argues that the historic use of subjugated/condemned and dehumanized populations by clinicians for biomedical research helped produce a dehumanized field of knowledge. It offers a new and far-reaching interpretive framework that replaces Michel Foucault's thesis that the detachment of biomedical practitioners from their human research subjects resulted purely from a natural-scientific ‘clinical gaze’. This ‘gaze’ can be understood in more comprehensive terms as also the ‘symbolic gaze’ derived from the sociogenic code of a specific genre of ‘being’ human, including that of the late modern, purely biocentric variant of secular Western Man. And it is within the terms of this dual-perspectived ‘gaze’ that the biological bodies of dehumanized/subjugated populations were perceived first and foremost as the embodiment of symbolic death — as lives having no human value — in opposition to that of the clinician/practitioner as the self- and societally-represented embodiment of symbolic life.Less
This chapter traces and analyzes the history of human subject research and its role in the production of knowledge for biomedical use. It argues that the historic use of subjugated/condemned and dehumanized populations by clinicians for biomedical research helped produce a dehumanized field of knowledge. It offers a new and far-reaching interpretive framework that replaces Michel Foucault's thesis that the detachment of biomedical practitioners from their human research subjects resulted purely from a natural-scientific ‘clinical gaze’. This ‘gaze’ can be understood in more comprehensive terms as also the ‘symbolic gaze’ derived from the sociogenic code of a specific genre of ‘being’ human, including that of the late modern, purely biocentric variant of secular Western Man. And it is within the terms of this dual-perspectived ‘gaze’ that the biological bodies of dehumanized/subjugated populations were perceived first and foremost as the embodiment of symbolic death — as lives having no human value — in opposition to that of the clinician/practitioner as the self- and societally-represented embodiment of symbolic life.
Adrian R. Morrison
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- March 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780195374445
- eISBN:
- 9780199847938
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374445.001.0001
- Subject:
- Psychology, Social Psychology
The relationship between animals and humans is more complex today than ever before. Animal–human interaction has engendered a bitter enmity between animal rights activists and the biomedical ...
More
The relationship between animals and humans is more complex today than ever before. Animal–human interaction has engendered a bitter enmity between animal rights activists and the biomedical researchers whose work depends on the use (and oftentimes the killing) of laboratory animals. This book—which argues that humane animal use in biomedical research is an indispensable tool of medical science, and that efforts to halt such use constitute a grave threat to human health and wellbeing— is the culmination of the author's years spent negotiating the treacherous divide between a legitimate concern for animals and the importance of biomedical research. Drawing on the disciplines of philosophy, history, biology, and animal behavior, he crafts a multi-faceted argument in favor of using animals humanely in research, the center of which is his staunch belief that human interests must be the primary concern of science and society. Along the way, he delves into other human uses of animals in domains such as agriculture, hunting, and education, examining each use along with its philosophical, moral, and ecological implications. The result is a thought-provoking, intelligent and fair-minded discussion of a charged subject—of the past and present of animals' relationships with humans, and how and why we should be able to use them as we do.Less
The relationship between animals and humans is more complex today than ever before. Animal–human interaction has engendered a bitter enmity between animal rights activists and the biomedical researchers whose work depends on the use (and oftentimes the killing) of laboratory animals. This book—which argues that humane animal use in biomedical research is an indispensable tool of medical science, and that efforts to halt such use constitute a grave threat to human health and wellbeing— is the culmination of the author's years spent negotiating the treacherous divide between a legitimate concern for animals and the importance of biomedical research. Drawing on the disciplines of philosophy, history, biology, and animal behavior, he crafts a multi-faceted argument in favor of using animals humanely in research, the center of which is his staunch belief that human interests must be the primary concern of science and society. Along the way, he delves into other human uses of animals in domains such as agriculture, hunting, and education, examining each use along with its philosophical, moral, and ecological implications. The result is a thought-provoking, intelligent and fair-minded discussion of a charged subject—of the past and present of animals' relationships with humans, and how and why we should be able to use them as we do.
Rebecca
Dresser
- Published in print:
- 2000
- Published Online:
- March 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780198299189
- eISBN:
- 9780191685644
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299189.003.0024
- Subject:
- Law, Philosophy of Law, Medical Law
During the 1990s, US government priorities for biomedical research funding became the focus of heated debate. Some members of Congress joined with organizations advocating on behalf of persons with ...
More
During the 1990s, US government priorities for biomedical research funding became the focus of heated debate. Some members of Congress joined with organizations advocating on behalf of persons with various health problems to raise questions concerning how funds are allocated at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the major government agency supporting biomedical research. In turn, NIH officials produced a document setting forth the substantive criteria used to determine funding allocation. The agency also took steps to increase opportunities for members of the public to provide input on funding priorities. Yet the underlying debate remains unsettled. This chapter analyzes distributive and procedural justice issues raised by research priority setting, with the goal of clarifying the values, choices, and trade-offs at stake in this policy context. It also examines difficulties inherent in assigning priorities based on factors such as disease incidence, disease severity, prevention versus treatment, and age, gender, and ethnicity of affected populations. Lastly, it considers the potential roles of laypersons and experts in establishing priorities for publicly-funded health research.Less
During the 1990s, US government priorities for biomedical research funding became the focus of heated debate. Some members of Congress joined with organizations advocating on behalf of persons with various health problems to raise questions concerning how funds are allocated at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the major government agency supporting biomedical research. In turn, NIH officials produced a document setting forth the substantive criteria used to determine funding allocation. The agency also took steps to increase opportunities for members of the public to provide input on funding priorities. Yet the underlying debate remains unsettled. This chapter analyzes distributive and procedural justice issues raised by research priority setting, with the goal of clarifying the values, choices, and trade-offs at stake in this policy context. It also examines difficulties inherent in assigning priorities based on factors such as disease incidence, disease severity, prevention versus treatment, and age, gender, and ethnicity of affected populations. Lastly, it considers the potential roles of laypersons and experts in establishing priorities for publicly-funded health research.
Morrison Adrian R.
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- March 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780195374445
- eISBN:
- 9780199847938
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374445.003.0005
- Subject:
- Psychology, Social Psychology
This chapter addresses biomedical research in a larger context, and examines how science works in general. It focuses on the contributions that animals have made to the health and welfare of humans. ...
More
This chapter addresses biomedical research in a larger context, and examines how science works in general. It focuses on the contributions that animals have made to the health and welfare of humans. Humans owe a large debt to laboratory animals for developing the health of humans despite some claims to the contrary, some of them from rather unexpected quarters. It also provides a discussion of the use of animals in education. In addition, it presents a remarkable survey showing how far removed from a particular clinical condition basic research can be and still lead to a major advance. It then describes a real-life example of applied research—how one surgeon sought to keep his surgical patients from dying of malnutrition. Utilization of animals in research should be controlled.Less
This chapter addresses biomedical research in a larger context, and examines how science works in general. It focuses on the contributions that animals have made to the health and welfare of humans. Humans owe a large debt to laboratory animals for developing the health of humans despite some claims to the contrary, some of them from rather unexpected quarters. It also provides a discussion of the use of animals in education. In addition, it presents a remarkable survey showing how far removed from a particular clinical condition basic research can be and still lead to a major advance. It then describes a real-life example of applied research—how one surgeon sought to keep his surgical patients from dying of malnutrition. Utilization of animals in research should be controlled.
Thomas Banchoff
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- August 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780801449574
- eISBN:
- 9780801460593
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Cornell University Press
- DOI:
- 10.7591/cornell/9780801449574.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Public Policy
This chapter traces the emergence of the human embryo as an object of ethical controversy from 1968 through the early 1990s. This trajectory can be divided into three phases. The first phase, roughly ...
More
This chapter traces the emergence of the human embryo as an object of ethical controversy from 1968 through the early 1990s. This trajectory can be divided into three phases. The first phase, roughly the decade following from the first fertilization of an egg outside the womb in Cambridge, England, in 1968, centered on concerns about eugenics, safety, and human sexuality. The focus was on the development of IVF as an infertility treatment and the race to produce the first “test-tube” baby. The moral status of the embryo was a subordinate issue. During a second phase, as IVF was gradually established as an infertility treatment, from 1978 to 1986, national ethics committees took up the problem of the respect due to the embryo, on the one hand, and the imperative of biomedical research, on the other. During a third phase, from 1987 to 1994, which coincided with the onset of political and policy struggles, the ethical debate became more polarized. The Catholic Church and its pro-life allies fused the embryo research and abortion issues, and scientists and their allies in the bioethics community increasingly emphasized the healing power of research for infertility and other conditions.Less
This chapter traces the emergence of the human embryo as an object of ethical controversy from 1968 through the early 1990s. This trajectory can be divided into three phases. The first phase, roughly the decade following from the first fertilization of an egg outside the womb in Cambridge, England, in 1968, centered on concerns about eugenics, safety, and human sexuality. The focus was on the development of IVF as an infertility treatment and the race to produce the first “test-tube” baby. The moral status of the embryo was a subordinate issue. During a second phase, as IVF was gradually established as an infertility treatment, from 1978 to 1986, national ethics committees took up the problem of the respect due to the embryo, on the one hand, and the imperative of biomedical research, on the other. During a third phase, from 1987 to 1994, which coincided with the onset of political and policy struggles, the ethical debate became more polarized. The Catholic Church and its pro-life allies fused the embryo research and abortion issues, and scientists and their allies in the bioethics community increasingly emphasized the healing power of research for infertility and other conditions.
Zachary M. Schrag
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- January 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027465
- eISBN:
- 9780262320825
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027465.003.0024
- Subject:
- Biology, Bioethics
This chapter explores various ways of distinguishing research that should and should not be covered by human subjects regulations. Aligning regulations to the underlying statute, which only covers ...
More
This chapter explores various ways of distinguishing research that should and should not be covered by human subjects regulations. Aligning regulations to the underlying statute, which only covers “biomedical and behavioral research,” would return scrutiny to the areas of concern identified by Congress. Alternatively, defining “human subjects” more narrowly as those people in the power of an investigator might focus energy on the prevention of the abuse of power. By contrast, relying on distinctions between generalizable knowledge and nongeneralizable knowledge is the very worst strategy, for in three decades policy makers have proved unable to agree on what this distinction means.Less
This chapter explores various ways of distinguishing research that should and should not be covered by human subjects regulations. Aligning regulations to the underlying statute, which only covers “biomedical and behavioral research,” would return scrutiny to the areas of concern identified by Congress. Alternatively, defining “human subjects” more narrowly as those people in the power of an investigator might focus energy on the prevention of the abuse of power. By contrast, relying on distinctions between generalizable knowledge and nongeneralizable knowledge is the very worst strategy, for in three decades policy makers have proved unable to agree on what this distinction means.
