PubMed · 8970784
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R C Fox. More than bioethics.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8970784/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This article is a critical examination of the science and ethics of human cloning. It summarises the key scientific milestones in the development of nuclear transplantation, explains the importance of cloning to research into the medical potential of embryonic stem cells, and discusses the well-worn distinction between 'therapeutic' and 'reproductive' cloning. Suggesting that this distinction will be impossible to police, it goes on to consider the ethics of full human cloning. It is concluded that it represents an unacceptable form of parental despotism, and that the genetic engineering and cloning of future human beings will fracture the foundations of modern humanism.
Clinical Study Agreements (CSAs) can have profound effects both on the protection of human subjects and on the independence of investigators to conduct research with scientific integrity. Sponsors, institutions, and even investigators may fail to give adequate attention to these issues in the negotiation of CSAs. Despite the key role of CSAs in structuring ethically important aspects of research, they remain largely unregulated and unreviewed for adherence to ethical norms. Academic institutions routinely enter into research contracts that fail to meet adequate ethical standards. This is a failing that can have serious consequences. Accordingly, it is necessary that some independent body have the authority both to review research contracts for compliance with norms of subject protection and ethical integrity, and to reject studies that fail to meet ethical standards. Such review should take place prior to the start of research, not later. Because of its expertise and authority, the institutional ethics review board (IRB or REB) is the appropriate body to undertake such review. Much recent commentary has focused on contractual restrictions on the investigator's freedom to publish research findings. The Olivieri experience, and that of other investigators, has brought freedom of publication issues into sharp focus. Clinical study agreements also raise a number of other ethical issues relating to human subjects and research integrity, however, including disclosures relating to patient safety, data analysis and reporting, budget, confidentiality, and premature termination of the study. This paper describes the ethical issues at stake in structuring such agreements and suggests ethical standards to guide institutional ethics review.