title: Understanding bureaucracy in health science ethics: toward a better institutional review board.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Public Administration and Policy at the University of Georgia, Athens.
authors.forename: Barry
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Bozeman
authors.forename: Catherine
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Slade
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Hirsch
mesh_terms: D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000458:organization & administration*; D028744:Ethics Committees, Research / Q000458:organization & administration*; D004991:Ethics, Institutional; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D032984:Ethics, Research; D006805:Human Experimentation / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D007855:Lead Poisoning; D017146:Models, Organizational; D035842:Research Subjects; D035844:Researcher-Subject Relations / Q000941:ethics; D013587:Syphilis