Not exact matches
Every year since 1996, the US Congress has included language in its budget bills prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for «
research in which a
human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly
subjected to
risk of injury or death.»
The plaintiffs claimed that the new policy violated the Dickey - Wicker Amendment, established in 1996, which states that federal money can not be used for «
research in which a
human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly
subjected to
risk of injury or death.»
Human subject research must adhere to three basic principles: (1) respect for individuals; respecting their autonomy; (2) beneficence; doing no harm and maximizing possible benefits while minimizing
risks; and (3) justice; taking special care not to exploit vulnerable groups.
Pioneering
research on this
subject by Paul Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff, and others, vast
research on
human cognition by Daniel Kahneman and colleagues, and
research on the brain's fear response by neuroscientists Joseph LeDoux, Elizabeth Phelps, and others, all make abundantly clear that the perception of
risk is not simply a matter of the facts, but more a matter of how those facts feel.
It addresses specific legal and policy issues related to
human subject research, including allocation of
risk, and the protection of rights.
However, we agree that the relevant Common Rule criterion for the approval of
human subjects research provides better guidance to IRBs and privacy boards for assessing the privacy
risks and benefits of a
research proposal.
Therefore, in the final rule, we modeled the criterion on the relevant Common Rule requirement for the approval of
human subjects research, and revised the proposed criterion to state: «the privacy
risks to individuals whose protected health information is to be used or disclosed are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits if any to the individuals, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result from the
research.»