PhilArchive
open access
Exempting All Minimal-Risk Research from IRB Review: Pruning or Poisoning the Regulatory Tree?
In a recent commentary, Kim and colleagues argued that minimal-risk research should be deregulated so that such studies do not require review by an institutional review board. They claim that regulation of minimal-risk studies provides no adequate counterbalancing good and instead leads to a costly human subjects oversight system. We argue that the counterbalancing good of regulating minimal-risk studies is that oversight exists to ensure that respect for persons and justice requirements are satisfied when they otherwise might not be.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Situational Vulnerability in Research: Risk Assessment, Informed Consent, and IRB Protections in University Contexts#248174
- Situational Vulnerability in Education Research: Risk Assessment, Informed Consent, and IRB Protections in University Contexts#240553
- Communicating Science-Based Information about Risk: How Ethics Can Help#772802
- What’s Right About the Medical Model in Human Subjects Research Regulation#733015
- Randomized Controlled Trials and the Flow of Information: Comment on Cartwright#764246
Record · ID 116638
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive