Advertisement
AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

AJPH First Look, published online ahead of print Jul 16, 2009
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
AJPH.2008.152389v1
99/9/1549    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow purchase articles
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Get other permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bozeman, B.
Right arrow Articles by Hirsch, P.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bozeman, B.
Right arrow Articles by Hirsch, P.
Related Collections
Right arrow Social Science
Right arrow History
Right arrow Human Rights
September 2009, Vol 99, No. 9 | American Journal of Public Health 1549-1556
© 2009 American Public Health Association
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.152389

HEALTH POLICY AND ETHICS

Understanding Bureaucracy in Health Science Ethics: Toward a Better Institutional Review Board

Barry Bozeman, PhD, Catherine Slade, PhD and Paul Hirsch, PhD

At the time of writing, Barry Bozeman was with the Department of Public Administration and Policy at the University of Georgia, Athens. Catherine P. Slade was with the Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, Tempe. Paul Hirsch was with the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.

Correspondence: Correspondence should be sent to Catherine P. Slade, Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, PO Box 875603, Tempe, AZ 85287-5603 (e-mail: slade3534{at}comcast.net). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the "Reprints/Eprints" link.

Research involving human participants continues to grow dramatically, fueled by advances in medical technology, globalization of research, and financial and professional incentives. This creates increasing opportunities for ethical errors with devastating effects. The typical professional and policy response to calamities involving human participants in research is to layer on more ethical guidelines or strictures.

We used a recent case—the Johns Hopkins University/Kennedy Kreiger Institute Lead Paint Study—to examine lessons learned since the Tuskegee Syphilis Study about the role of institutionalized science ethics in the protection of human participants in research. We address the role of the institutional review board as the focal point for policy attention.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Public Health Association