Report on the National Commission: Good as Gold |
| |
| Authors: | George J. Annas J.D. M.P.H. |
| |
| Affiliation: | George J. Annas is Associate Professor of Law and Medicine at Boston University Schools of Medicine and Public Health. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of;Medicolegal Newsand Co-Editor of Nursing Law &Ethics. This article was originally published in the Summer 1980 issue of Bioethics Quarterly. §1980. George J. Annas. |
| |
| Abstract: | ABSTRACT: The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research ended its work by substantially endorsing the status quo which places primary reliance on local Institutional Review Boards for subject protection. This was predictable because of the Commission's researcher-dominated composition which permitted it to assume that (1) research is good; (2) experimentation is almost never harmful to subjects; and (3) researcher-dominated IRBs can adequately protect the interests of human subjects. The successor Presidential Commission can learn much by re-examining these premises. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
