期刊文献+

从受试者保护视角谈研究者的道德责任 被引量:2

Discussion on the moral responsibilities of investigators from the perspective of human subject protection
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的通过探讨研究者在受试者保护中应承担的职责,为探索建构一个基于研究者与伦理委员会密切合作的受试者保护框架提供参考。方法系统分析研究者在研究设计、实施和结题阶段应纳入的受试者保护相关考虑,明确研究者在研究不同阶段应关注的重点伦理问题。结果当前对法规依从性要求的强调,虽然为受试者保护提供了一定的制度保障,但是,不利于研究者在受试者保护中发挥更加主动的作用。结论保护受试者不仅仅是伦理委员会的职责,研究者应当采取更加负责任的态度,主动将受试者保护相关的伦理考虑纳人研究的全过程。 Objective According to the discussion of investigator responsibilities for human subject protection,to provide possible reference for the construction of human subject protection framework calls for more collaboration between investigators and Institutional Review Board(IRB).Methods Systematically analyze the investigator responsibilitievS during the whole process of research including design,implementation and closure,identify key ethical issues that need attention at different stages.Results Currently,the culture of regulatory compliance,though good for the human subject protection from regulatory perspective»is still not optimal for encouraging more innovative protection from investigator perspectives.Conclusions Human subject protection is not only the responsibility of IRBs,investigators should also be more responsible and bring in more ethical considerations in human subject research.
作者 张海洪 Zhang Haihong(Peking University Human Research Protection Program,Research Department of Peking University Health Science Center,Beijing 100191,China)
出处 《中华医学科研管理杂志》 2019年第6期401-404,共4页 Chinese Journal of Medical Science Research Management
基金 国家食品药品监督管理总局研究课题资助(2015)。
关键词 受试者保护 研究者职责 依从性 质量控制 负责任 Human subject protection Investigator responsibility Compliance Quality control Responsible
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献20

  • 1[1]ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. E9, statistical principles for clinical trials[S]. 1998
  • 2[2]Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOM). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects[S]. 2002
  • 3[4]National Institutes of Health. Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) Guidelines[S]. 2001
  • 4[5]National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Data and Safety Monitoring Board Standard Operating Procedures[S]. 2000
  • 5[6]National Cancer Institute of United States. Policy of The National Cancer Institute for Data and Safety Monitoring of Clinical Trials[S]. 1999
  • 6刘激扬,田勇泉.提高生命科学研究中的伦理审查质量的思考[J].医学与哲学(A),2007,28(12):8-9. 被引量:9
  • 7World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration oI Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects[J . JAMA, 2013,310(27) :2191--2194.
  • 8Office of Inspector General,Department of Health and Human Services. Institutional Review Boards A Time for Reform[R]. Washington Department of Health and Human Services, 1998.
  • 9Office for Human Research Protections. Guidance on IRB Continuing Review of Researeh[EB/OL]. (2010--11--10)[2014--01 10]. http:// www. hhs. gov/ohrp/policy/continuingreview2010, htrnl.
  • 10Duke University Health System Institutional Review Board. Determining Frequency of Continuing Review[EB/OL]. [2014 01-10]. http:// irb. dubs. duke. edu/modules/irb_pols/index, php? id=3.

共引文献15

同被引文献17

引证文献2

二级引证文献6

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部