Difference between revisions of "Resource:8a2719e6-7498-40c5-96a8-be0e10a81e27"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Canaries in the mines: children, risk, non-therapeutic research, and justice |Is About=. |Important Because=. Journal Factual |I...") |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title=Canaries in the | + | |Title=Canaries in the Mines: Children, Risk, Non-Therapeutic Research, and Justice |
| − | |Is About=. | + | |Is About=This is a factual case discussing the Kennedy Krieger lead paint study, where a United States Court of Appeals condemned what it called a “non-therapeutic research programme” using children. The court ruled that a parent cannot consent to the participation of a child in “non-therapeutic” research in the state of Maryland . The case involves issues that had been given little attention by the courts, such as children’s participation in research, proxy consent, and the duties of medical researchers towards their participants. The analysis includes a discussion of the relevance of the “therapeutic” versus “non-therapeutic” importance and value of a study, as well as cost-benefit analysis, the design of research, and study aims. |
| − | |Important Because=. | + | |Important Because=The analysis provides a strategy to help identify when something is amiss with a research proposal and prompts a much closer examination of such issues. |
| − | + | |Important For=Researchers; PI | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
Latest revision as of 13:33, 19 August 2021
ResourcesCases
Canaries in the Mines: Children, Risk, Non-Therapeutic Research, and Justice
What is this about?
This is a factual case discussing the Kennedy Krieger lead paint study, where a United States Court of Appeals condemned what it called a “non-therapeutic research programme” using children. The court ruled that a parent cannot consent to the participation of a child in “non-therapeutic” research in the state of Maryland . The case involves issues that had been given little attention by the courts, such as children’s participation in research, proxy consent, and the duties of medical researchers towards their participants. The analysis includes a discussion of the relevance of the “therapeutic” versus “non-therapeutic” importance and value of a study, as well as cost-benefit analysis, the design of research, and study aims.
Why is this important?
The analysis provides a strategy to help identify when something is amiss with a research proposal and prompts a much closer examination of such issues.
