ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2008
Regulation and the social licence for medical research.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the dataset: integrating public voices in data science.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Public Involvement and Engagement in Big Data Research: Scoping Review.Journal of participatory medicine · 2024Article
- Ethical Oversight and Social Licensing of Portable MRI Research.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024Article
- 'To me, it's ones and zeros, but in reality that one is death': A qualitative study exploring researchers' experience of involving and engaging seldom-heard communities in big data research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Patients' and public views and attitudes towards the sharing of health data for research: a narrative review of the empirical evidence.Journal of medical ethics · 2022Review
- The social licence for data-intensive health research: towards co-creation, public value and trust.BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Demonstrating trustworthiness when collecting and sharing genomic data: public views across 22 countries.Genome medicine · 2021Article
- Big Data and Public-Private Partnerships in Healthcare and Research: The Application of an Ethics Framework for Big Data in Health and Research.Asian bioethics review · 2019Article
- Researchers' attitudes to the 3Rs-An upturned hierarchy?PloS one · 2018Article
- A qualitative study of participants' views on re-consent in a longitudinal biobank.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- Trust me, I'm a researcher!: The role of trust in biomedical research.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2017Article
- Can an ethics officer role reduce delays in research ethics approval? A mixed-method evaluation of an improvement project.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Bioethics as a Governance Practice.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2016Article
- Consent revisited: the impact of return of results on participants' views and expectations about trial participation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Article
- Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees.BMC medical ethics · 2015Article
- The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble.Journal of medical ethics · 2015Article
- A Critical Look at Biomedical Journals' Policies on Animal Research by Use of a Novel Tool: The EXEMPLAR Scale.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2015Article
- Governing stem cell therapy in India: regulatory vacuum or jurisdictional ambiguity?New genetics and society · 2014Article
- Creating the 'ethics industry': Mary Warnock, in vitro fertilization and the history of bioethics in Britain.BioSocieties · 2011Article
- Improving transparency and ethical accountability in animal studies: three ways to link ethical approvals to publications.EMBO reports · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regulation and governance of medical research is frequently criticised by researchers. In this paper, we draw on Everett Hughes' concepts of professional licence and professional mandate, and on contemporary sociological theory on risk regulation, to explain the emergence of research governance and the kinds of criticism it receives. We offer explanations for researcher criticism of the rules and practices of research governance, suggesting that these are perceived as interference in their mandate. We argue that, in spite of their complaints, researchers benefit from the institutions of governance and regulation, in particular by the ways in which regulation secures the social licence for research. While it is difficult to answer questions such as: "Is medical research over-regulated?" and "Does the regulation of medical research successfully protect patients or promote ethical conduct?", a close analysis of the social functions of research governance and its relationship to risk, trust, and confidence permits us to pose these questions in a more illuminating way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18633729What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.