RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • Morality in science: How research is evaluated in the age of human subjects regulation

        Stark, Laura Jeanine Morris Princeton University 2006 해외박사(DDOD)

        RANK : 234015

        This dissertation examines how social factors help explain the way in which distinctions between right and wrong have been draw in the United States since the 1950s regarding the treatment of human subjects in research. By examining the history and present-day practices of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), this dissertation explains why decisions about the treatment of human subjects have been defined as valid by different criteria over time; how decisions are made through social interactions today; and how the human subjects review system shapes the production of knowledge in science and medicine in the twenty-first century. The first, historical section of this dissertation describes the relocation of authority on how to treat human subjects from individual investigators to federally-mandated review committees. Evidence is drawn from the archives of federal agencies and of one professional scientific organization (the American Psychological Association). The second, ethnographic section is an analysis of audio recordings and field notes of IRB deliberations at three universities, interviews with members of these boards, and interviews with a sample of IRB chairs from major American research universities. This dissertation argues that the judgments and decision-making dynamics of IRBs today are shaped by the design of the boards, which crystallized in the United States between the 1950s and 1970s. It further argues that present-day decisions about the treatment of human subjects that seem idiosyncratic, uneven, or inappropriate when viewed from outside of IRBs can be understood as systematic when placed in historical context, and when IRBs judgments are observed as processes over time.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼