Premium
The Misregulation of Research?
Author(s) -
Resnik David B.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
hastings center report
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.515
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1552-146X
pISSN - 0093-0334
DOI - 10.1002/hast.517
Subject(s) - status quo , tort , law , government (linguistics) , political science , government regulation , law and economics , subject (documents) , human research , sociology , psychology , philosophy , cognitive science , computer science , liability , linguistics , china , library science
Very few people who read Carl Schneider's The Censor's Hand: The Misregulation of Human‐Subject Research (MIT Press, 2015) will have a neutral opinion of his book. Schneider defends the radical thesis that the system of regulating human subjects research is not just broken but deeply misguided and therefore needs to be abolished. While some researchers who are frustrated with the current regime will welcome Schneider's scathing critiques of institutional review boards and the regulations they enforce, those who view the status quo as a necessary, though perhaps flawed, means of protecting human subjects will recoil from his arguments and conclusions. Schneider rejects reform efforts, such as the proposed revisions to the Common Rule, as likely to be short‐lived and ineffective. He argues that professional self‐regulation and tort law can do a better job of protecting human subjects and advancing research than government regulation .