• 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

相似文献

1
Ethics in field experimentation: A call to establish new standards to protect the public from unwanted manipulation and real harms.现场实验中的伦理学:呼吁建立新标准,以保护公众免受不必要的操纵和真正的伤害。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Dec 1;117(48):30014-30021. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2012021117. Epub 2020 Nov 23.
2
Human Participants in Engineering Research: Notes from a Fledgling Ethics Committee.工程研究中的人类受试者:一个初创伦理委员会的笔记
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Aug;21(4):1033-48. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9568-2. Epub 2014 Jun 18.
3
[Medical research-ethics applied to social sciences: relevance, limits, issues and necessary adjustments].[应用于社会科学的医学研究伦理:相关性、局限性、问题及必要调整]
Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 2008 Apr;101(2):77-84.
4
Ethics and regulation in organ procurement research.器官获取研究中的伦理与监管
Prog Transplant. 2002 Dec;12(4):257-63; quiz 264-5. doi: 10.1177/152692480201200405.
5
Ethics of research involving humans: uniform processes for disparate categories?涉及人类的研究伦理:不同类别的统一流程?
Monash Bioeth Rev. 2003 Jul;22(3):50-65. doi: 10.1007/BF03351397.
6
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.
7
Research on ethics in two large Human Biomonitoring projects ECNIS and NewGeneris: a bottom up approach.两项大型人类生物监测项目ECNIS和NewGeneris中的伦理研究:一种自下而上的方法。
Environ Health. 2008 Jun 5;7 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S7. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-7-S1-S7.
8
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
9
[The origin of informed consent].[知情同意的起源]
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27.
10
[The shaping of ethical approach to medical experimentation in Poland].[波兰医学实验伦理方法的形成]
Ginekol Pol. 2003 Jun;74(6):494-9.

引用本文的文献

1
Public attitudes towards social media field experiments.公众对社交媒体现场实验的态度。
Sci Rep. 2024 Oct 30;14(1):26110. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-76948-z.
2
Vulnerability in research ethics: A call for assessing vulnerability and implementing protections.研究伦理中的脆弱性:评估脆弱性和实施保护的呼吁。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Aug 20;121(34):e2322821121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2322821121. Epub 2024 Aug 14.
3
Ethics in scientific research: a lens into its importance, history, and future.科学研究中的伦理:透视其重要性、历史与未来。
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2024 Mar 21;86(5):2395-2398. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001959. eCollection 2024 May.
4
The pursuit of accurate predictive models of the bioactivity of small molecules.对小分子生物活性精确预测模型的追求。
Chem Sci. 2024 Jan 12;15(6):1938-1952. doi: 10.1039/d3sc05534e. eCollection 2024 Feb 7.
5
Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding.伦理与社会评论:伦理反思是研究资助的前提。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Dec 28;118(52). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2117261118.
6
Synthesizing evidence in sustainability science through harmonized experiments: Community monitoring in common pool resources.通过统一实验整合可持续性科学中的证据:公共池塘资源的社区监测
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jul 20;118(29). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2106489118.
7
A call for structured ethics appendices in social science papers.呼吁在社会科学论文中加入结构化的伦理附录。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jul 20;118(29). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2024570118.
8
Opinion: Past is future for the era of COVID-19 research in the social sciences.观点:在社会科学领域的新冠疫情研究时代,过去即未来。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Mar 30;118(13). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2104155118.

本文引用的文献

1
Unethical work must be filtered out or flagged.不道德的工作必须被筛选出来或标记出来。
Nature. 2019 Aug;572(7768):171-172. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02378-x.
2
Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization.社交媒体上接触对立观点会加剧政治极化。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Sep 11;115(37):9216-9221. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1804840115. Epub 2018 Aug 28.
3
Unethical human research in the field of neuroscience: a historical review.神经科学领域不道德的人类研究:历史回顾。
Neurol Sci. 2018 May;39(5):829-834. doi: 10.1007/s10072-018-3245-1. Epub 2018 Feb 19.
4
Empowerment and Intimate Partner Violence in Pakistan: Results From a Nationally Representative Survey.巴基斯坦的赋权与亲密伴侣暴力:一项全国代表性调查的结果
J Interpers Violence. 2020 Feb;35(3-4):854-875. doi: 10.1177/0886260517690873. Epub 2017 Feb 13.
5
Working memory regulates trait anxiety-related threat processing biases.工作记忆调节与特质焦虑相关的威胁加工偏差。
Emotion. 2017 Jun;17(4):616-627. doi: 10.1037/emo0000264. Epub 2016 Dec 19.
6
Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing.持久减少跨性别恐惧症:挨家挨户上门宣传的现场实验。
Science. 2016 Apr 8;352(6282):220-4. doi: 10.1126/science.aad9713.
7
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.
8
Facebook study: a little bit unethical but worth it?脸书研究:有点不道德但值得吗?
J Bioeth Inq. 2015 Jun;12(2):179-82. doi: 10.1007/s11673-015-9621-0. Epub 2015 Mar 5.
9
Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks.通过社交网络的大规模情感传染的实验证据。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jun 17;111(24):8788-90. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320040111. Epub 2014 Jun 2.
10
Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities.污名化是造成人口健康不平等的根本原因。
Am J Public Health. 2013 May;103(5):813-21. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301069. Epub 2013 Mar 14.

现场实验中的伦理学:呼吁建立新标准,以保护公众免受不必要的操纵和真正的伤害。

Ethics in field experimentation: A call to establish new standards to protect the public from unwanted manipulation and real harms.

机构信息

Political Science, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912.

Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802;

出版信息

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Dec 1;117(48):30014-30021. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2012021117. Epub 2020 Nov 23.

DOI:10.1073/pnas.2012021117
PMID:33229586
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7720186/
Abstract

In 1966, Henry Beecher published his foundational paper "Ethics and Clinical Research," bringing to light unethical experiments that were routinely being conducted by leading universities and government agencies. A common theme was the lack of voluntary consent. Research regulations surrounding laboratory experiments flourished after his work. More than half a century later, we seek to follow in his footsteps and identify a new domain of risk to the public: certain types of field experiments. The nature of experimental research has changed greatly since the Belmont Report. Due in part to technological advances including social media, experimenters now target and affect whole societies, releasing interventions into a living public, often without sufficient review or controls. A large number of social science field experiments do not reflect compliance with current ethical and legal requirements that govern research with human participants. Real-world interventions are being conducted without consent or notice to the public they affect. Follow-ups and debriefing are routinely not being undertaken with the populations that experimenters injure. Importantly, even when ethical research guidelines are followed, researchers are following principles developed for experiments in controlled settings, with little assessment or protection for the wider societies within which individuals are embedded. We strive to improve the ethics of future work by advocating the creation of new norms, illustrating classes of field experiments where scholars do not appear to have recognized the ways such research circumvents ethical standards by putting people, including those outside the manipulated group, into harm's way.

摘要

1966 年,Henry Beecher 发表了具有开创性的论文《伦理与临床研究》,揭露了一些常由顶尖大学和政府机构进行的不道德实验。一个共同的主题是缺乏自愿同意。在他的工作之后,实验室实验的研究规定蓬勃发展。半个多世纪后,我们试图效仿他的脚步,发现公众面临的一个新的风险领域:某些类型的现场实验。自《贝尔蒙报告》以来,实验研究的性质发生了很大变化。部分由于包括社交媒体在内的技术进步,实验者现在将目标对准并影响整个社会,将干预措施引入到现实生活中的公众中,而通常没有进行充分的审查或控制。大量的社会科学现场实验并没有反映出对当前管理人类参与者研究的伦理和法律要求的遵守。现实世界的干预措施在没有征得公众同意或通知他们的情况下进行。实验者伤害的人群通常没有进行随访和汇报。重要的是,即使遵循了伦理研究准则,研究人员也在遵循针对受控环境中的实验制定的原则,而很少对个人所处的更广泛的社会进行评估或保护。我们通过倡导制定新规范来努力改进未来工作的伦理,举例说明了一类现场实验,学者们似乎没有认识到这种研究通过将人置于危险之中(包括被操纵群体之外的人)来规避伦理标准的方式。