Suppr超能文献

美国联邦生物伦理委员会的不同目的

What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions.

出版信息

Hastings Cent Rep. 2017 May;47 Suppl 1(Suppl Suppl 1):S14-S16. doi: 10.1002/hast.712.

Abstract

In the forty-year history of U.S. bioethics commissions, these government-sanctioned forums have often demonstrated their power to address pressing problems and to enable policy change. For example, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established in 1974, left a legacy of reports that were translated into regulations and had an enormous practical impact. And the 1982 report Splicing Life, by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, became the basis for the National Institutes of Health's Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee as well as for the Food and Drug Administration's developing "Points to Consider" when contemplating the introduction of recombinant DNA into human beings. Some efforts of bioethics commissions, however, are not tightly connected to policy change or to outcomes directly linked to a specific report. While direct policy impact is indeed a useful metric for government bioethics commissions, it is not their only legitimate utility. For instance, bioethics commissions can also be incubators for deliberation on a hot topic, giving policy-makers time to think through options while the political heat has some time to dissipate. Or a bioethics commission may stake out a position that enables a politician to take action while not necessarily following its recommendations.

摘要

在 40 年的美国生物伦理委员会历史中,这些政府批准的论坛经常展示出解决紧迫问题和推动政策变革的能力。例如,1974 年成立的国家生物医学和行为研究人类受试者保护委员会,其报告被转化为法规,产生了巨大的实际影响。此外,医学和生物医学及行为研究伦理问题总统委员会的 1982 年报告《拼接生命》成为国家卫生研究院重组 DNA 咨询委员会以及食品和药物管理局在考虑将重组 DNA 引入人体时制定“注意事项”的基础。然而,生物伦理委员会的一些努力与政策变革或与特定报告直接相关的结果并没有紧密联系。虽然直接政策影响确实是政府生物伦理委员会的一个有用指标,但这不是它们唯一的合法用途。例如,生物伦理委员会也可以成为热门话题审议的孵化器,让政策制定者有时间在政治热度消散的同时思考各种选择。或者,生物伦理委员会可以采取某种立场,使政治家能够采取行动,而不一定遵循其建议。

相似文献

1
What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2017 May;47 Suppl 1(Suppl Suppl 1):S14-S16. doi: 10.1002/hast.712.
2
A Broader Bioethics: Topic Selection and the Impact of National Bioethics Commissions.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2017 May;47 Suppl 1(Suppl Suppl 1):S17-S19. doi: 10.1002/hast.713.
3
Making the Choices Necessary to Make a Difference: The Responsibility of National Bioethics Commissions.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2017 May;47 Suppl 1:S42-S45. doi: 10.1002/hast.720.
4
Inclusion, Access, and Civility in Public Bioethics.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2017 May;47 Suppl 1:S46-S49. doi: 10.1002/hast.721.
5
Challenges Working with Presidential Bioethics Commissions.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2017 May;47 Suppl 1:S39-S41. doi: 10.1002/hast.719.
6
The "nation's conscience:" assessing bioethics commissions as public forums.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2004 Dec;14(4):333-60. doi: 10.1353/ken.2004.0042.
7
Public Practices and Personal Perspectives.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2017 May;47 Suppl 1(Suppl Suppl 1):S2-S3. doi: 10.1002/hast.709.
8
Looking back at the President's Commission.
Hastings Cent Rep. 1983 Oct;13(5):7-10.
9
Do bioethics commissions hijack public debate?
Hastings Cent Rep. 1996 May-Jun;26(3):47.

引用本文的文献

1
Content development footprints for the establishment of a National Bioethics Committee: lessons from Nigeria.
Glob Bioeth. 2021 Jun 11;32(1):85-99. doi: 10.1080/11287462.2021.1939548.
2
A survey of national ethics and bioethics committees.
Bull World Health Organ. 2021 Feb 1;99(2):138-147. doi: 10.2471/BLT.19.243907. Epub 2020 Nov 30.

本文引用的文献

1
Building the Next Bioethics Commission.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2017 May;47 Suppl 1(Suppl Suppl 1):S4-S9. doi: 10.1002/hast.710.
3
Ethics and clinical research.
N Engl J Med. 1966 Jun 16;274(24):1354-60. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196606162742405.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验