Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCandilis, Philip J.
dc.contributor.authorArikan, Rasim
dc.contributor.authorNoone, Sheila B.
dc.contributor.authorHolzer, Jacob C.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:24.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:07:15Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:07:15Z
dc.date.issued2005-09-28
dc.date.submitted2011-03-01
dc.identifier.citationJ Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2005;33(3):361-7. <a href="http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/33/3/361">Link to article on publisher's website</a>
dc.identifier.issn1093-6793 (Linking)
dc.identifier.pmid16186201
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/45295
dc.description.abstractThe conduct of research with human participants is facing increased scrutiny from government, media, and academic sources. Research oversight is consequently increasing dramatically as education and accreditation movements gain momentum. Institutional review boards themselves are undergoing significant changes in organization and accountability, implementing new tools to monitor investigator compliance. This article describes the causes of recent calls for increased scrutiny, the resultant trends in research oversight, and the general lack of preparation for increased costs in the public sector. These are costs that will be felt acutely in the forensic setting as diminishing state budgets affect hospitals, universities, and correctional institutions.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16186201&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2861830/pdf/nihms-188556.pdf
dc.subjectClinical Protocols
dc.subjectCosts and Cost Analysis
dc.subjectEthics Committees, Research
dc.subject*Ethics, Research
dc.subjectForensic Psychiatry
dc.subjectGovernment Regulation
dc.subjectGuideline Adherence
dc.subjectHuman Experimentation
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectUnited States
dc.subjectUnited States Dept. of Health and Human Services
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.subjectMental and Social Health
dc.subjectPsychiatry
dc.subjectPsychiatry and Psychology
dc.titleThe new research ethic: will oversight requirements sink forensic research
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleThe journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
dc.source.volume33
dc.source.issue3
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/psych_cmhsr/393
dc.identifier.contextkey1833488
html.description.abstract<p>The conduct of research with human participants is facing increased scrutiny from government, media, and academic sources. Research oversight is consequently increasing dramatically as education and accreditation movements gain momentum. Institutional review boards themselves are undergoing significant changes in organization and accountability, implementing new tools to monitor investigator compliance. This article describes the causes of recent calls for increased scrutiny, the resultant trends in research oversight, and the general lack of preparation for increased costs in the public sector. These are costs that will be felt acutely in the forensic setting as diminishing state budgets affect hospitals, universities, and correctional institutions.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathpsych_cmhsr/393
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Psychiatry
dc.source.pages361-7


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record