• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

对人类研究对象的不平等对待。

Unequal treatment of human research subjects.

作者信息

Resnik David B

机构信息

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Box 12233, Mail Drop CU 03, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA,

出版信息

Med Health Care Philos. 2015 Feb;18(1):23-32. doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9569-6.

DOI:10.1007/s11019-014-9569-6
PMID:24879129
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4294468/
Abstract

Unequal treatment of human research subjects is a significant ethical concern, because justice in research involving human subjects requires equal protection of rights and equal protection from harm and exploitation. Disputes sometimes arise concerning the issue of unequal treatment of research subjects. Allegedly unequal treatment occurs when subjects are treated differently and there is a genuine dispute concerning the appropriateness of equal treatment. Patently unequal treatment occurs when subjects are treated differently and there is not a genuine dispute about the appropriateness of equal treatment. Allegedly unequal treatment will probably always occur in research with human subjects due to disagreements about fundamental questions of justice. The best way to deal with allegedly unequal treatment is to promote honest and open discussions of the issues at stake. Research regulations can help to minimize patently unequal treatment by providing rules for investigators, ethical review boards, institutions, and sponsors to follow. However, patently unequal treatment may still occur because the regulations are subject to interpretation. Federal agencies have provided interpretive guidance that can help promote consistent review and oversight of human subjects research. Additional direction may be needed on topics that are not adequately covered by current guidance or regulations. International guidelines can help promote equal treatment of human subjects around the globe. While minor variations in the treatment of research subjects should be tolerated and even welcomed, major ones (i.e. those that significantly impact human rights or welfare) should be avoided or minimized.

摘要

对人类研究对象的不平等对待是一个重大的伦理问题,因为涉及人类对象的研究中的公正要求平等保护权利以及平等保护免受伤害和剥削。关于研究对象不平等对待的问题有时会引发争议。当研究对象受到不同对待且对于平等对待的适当性存在真正争议时,就会出现所谓的不平等对待。当研究对象受到不同对待且对于平等对待的适当性不存在真正争议时,就会出现明显的不平等对待。由于在基本正义问题上存在分歧,所谓的不平等对待可能在涉及人类对象的研究中总是会出现。处理所谓不平等对待的最佳方式是推动对相关关键问题进行诚实且开放的讨论。研究法规可以通过为研究者、伦理审查委员会、机构和资助者提供遵循的规则,来帮助尽量减少明显的不平等对待。然而,明显的不平等对待仍可能发生,因为法规存在解释的空间。联邦机构已提供解释性指导,这有助于促进对人类对象研究进行一致的审查和监督。对于当前指导或法规未充分涵盖的主题,可能还需要更多的指导。国际准则有助于在全球范围内促进对人类研究对象的平等对待。虽然对研究对象的对待存在细微差异应予以容忍甚至欢迎,但重大差异(即那些对人权或福利有重大影响的差异)应避免或尽量减少。

相似文献

1
Unequal treatment of human research subjects.对人类研究对象的不平等对待。
Med Health Care Philos. 2015 Feb;18(1):23-32. doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9569-6.
2
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.美国临床肿瘤学会政策声明:临床研究监督
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
3
The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.《贝尔蒙报告》。保护人类研究受试者的伦理原则与准则。
J Am Coll Dent. 2014 Summer;81(3):4-13.
4
Ethics and stem cell therapeutics for cardiovascular disease.心血管疾病的伦理与干细胞治疗
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2007 Jul-Aug;50(1):1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2007.02.003.
5
The history and moral foundations of human-subject research.人体研究的历史与道德基础。
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Feb;86(2):82-5. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31802f00cd.
6
Nippon Medical School's Ethical Review Processes for Studies Involving Human Subjects.日本医科大学涉及人类受试者研究的伦理审查程序。
J Nippon Med Sch. 2024;91(2):136-139. doi: 10.1272/jnms.JNMS.2024_91-216.
7
Practical guide to understanding clinical research compliance.临床研究合规性实用指南。
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 May;150(5):716-21. doi: 10.1177/0194599814524895. Epub 2014 Mar 5.
8
A taxonomy of value in clinical research.临床研究中的价值分类。
IRB. 2002 Nov-Dec;24(6):1-6.
9
Research subjects with limited English proficiency: ethical and legal issues.英语水平有限的研究对象:伦理和法律问题。
Account Res. 2006 Apr-Jun;13(2):157-77. doi: 10.1080/08989620600654043.
10
Vulnerability as a regulatory category in human subject research.脆弱性作为人类受试者研究中的一个监管类别。
J Law Med Ethics. 2009 Spring;37(1):12-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00346.x.

引用本文的文献

1
Analysis of maxillary asymmetry before and after treatment of functional posterior cross-bite: a retrospective study using 3D imaging system and deviation analysis.使用三维成像系统和偏差分析研究功能性后牙反颌治疗前后上颌不对称性的分析:回顾性研究。
Prog Orthod. 2023 Dec 11;24(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s40510-023-00494-z.
2
"Choice of law" in precision medicine research.精准医学研究中的“法律选择”。
Am J Hum Genet. 2022 Aug 4;109(8):1347-1352. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2022.06.009.

本文引用的文献

1
The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.《贝尔蒙报告》。保护人类研究受试者的伦理原则与准则。
J Am Coll Dent. 2014 Summer;81(3):4-13.
2
Research-related injury compensation policies of U.S. research institutions.美国研究机构的科研相关伤害补偿政策。
IRB. 2014 Jan-Feb;36(1):12-9.
3
In need of remedy: US policy for compensating injured research participants.亟待补救:美国赔偿受伤研究参与者的政策。
J Med Ethics. 2014 Mar;40(3):182-5. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100771. Epub 2013 Apr 9.
4
Minor changes to previously approved research: a study of IRB policies.对先前批准研究的微小变更:一项关于机构审查委员会政策的研究
IRB. 2012 Jul-Aug;34(4):9-14.
5
Limits on risks for healthy volunteers in biomedical research.生物医学研究中健康志愿者风险的限制。
Theor Med Bioeth. 2012 Apr;33(2):137-49. doi: 10.1007/s11017-011-9201-1.
6
Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform.机构审查委员会给研究带来的负担:证据现状及其对监管改革的影响。
Milbank Q. 2011 Dec;89(4):599-627. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00644.x.
7
Relative versus absolute standards for everyday risk in adolescent HIV prevention trials: expanding the debate.青少年艾滋病预防试验中日常风险的相对标准与绝对标准:扩大辩论。
Am J Bioeth. 2011 Jun;11(6):5-13. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2011.568576.
8
Perspective: The case for research justice: inclusion of patients with limited English proficiency in clinical research.观点:研究公正的案例:将英语水平有限的患者纳入临床研究。
Acad Med. 2011 Mar;86(3):389-93. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318208289a.
9
Informed consent in international research: the rationale for different approaches.知情同意在国际研究中的应用:不同方法的基本原理。
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 Oct;83(4):743-7. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.10-0014.
10
Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial.机构审查委员会在评估多中心随机试验设计方面的差异。
J Perinatol. 2010 Mar;30(3):163-9. doi: 10.1038/jp.2009.157. Epub 2009 Oct 1.