<< Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Bibliogrphy (page 6 of 10) Grunberg, S. M. and W. T. Cefalu (2003). "The Integral Role of Clinical Research in Clinical Care." N Engl J Med 348(14): 1386-1388.       This article analyzes the relationship between clinical care and research in the performance of therapeutic clinical research. They argue that the role of the physician cannot be abrogated during the course of research and that individual subject improvement is the goal. This paper is very well worth reading in the face of contrary arguments indicating that researchers cannot put themselves in the position of clinicians if they are to conduct the research properly. Gupta, M. (2003). "A Critical Appraisal Of Evidence-Based Medicine: Some Ethical Considerations." Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 9(2): 111-121.       This paper analyzes the philosophical support for "evidence-based medicine" as the route to better health care, focusing on the intrinsic weaknesses of the data and biases in the research. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00382.x Gwynne, P. (1999). "Corporate Collaborations." The Scientist 13(11): 1, 6.       The reporter discusses cases in which a scientist under a confidentiality clause was prevented from reporting on adverse events associated with the research. This occurred under conditions under which the institution did not insist on academic freedom. The importance of writing the right kind of contract with industry was emphasized. Helmuth, L. (2001). "COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE: Moral Reasoning Relies on Emotion." Science 293(5537): 1971a-1972.      This short paper demonstrates that what we consider to be moral reasoning is not fixed in the rational brain but is associated with feeling developed by the manner in which the information is presented to us. Hensley, S. and L. Abboud (2004). Medical Research Has 'Black Hole.' Negative Results Often Fail to Get Published in Journals; Some blame Drug Industry. Wall St J. New York: B3. June 5, 2004.      This well-written article brings into focus the problems associated with failure to publish negative reports, something that has since gotten a great deal of attention. Hoeyer, K., L. Dahlager, et al. (2005). "Conflicting notions of research ethics: The mutually challenging traditions of social scientists and medical researchers." Social Science & Medicine 61(8): 1741.       When anthropologists and sociologists try to study health services in medical institutions, serious problems arise that are proposed in this paper to be due to cultural differences that might be ameliorated by dialogue. Good luck! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VBF-4G1GFK2-1/2/3b6968c880005504c1256540aafff920 Inouye, S. K. and D. A. Fiellin (2005). "An Evidence-Based Guide to Writing Grant Proposals for Clinical Research." Ann Intern Med 142(4): 274-282.       The competition for research funding is intense. Patient-oriented research lags in support behind that allocated for basic science research. Much of the time that is due to poor experimental design and poor grant-writing, neither of which are taught to M.D.s. This article gives an outline for the grant-writing process for clinical researchers. It focuses on those components of the grant proposal that are most likely to be criticized. They recommend methods to improve the quality of areas commonly cited as deficient. This is a really neat paper for anyone in the early phases of a career who has to write and write in hopes of getting funded. Institute of Medicine. (2002). Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants.       This book attempts to describe improvements to the entire process of clinical research, emphasizing the protection of vulnerable participants. It makes numerous recommendations to institutions and government to improve the research process and better prepare all the team members for their roles. It should be required reading for those who have institutional responsibility for research. Kaiser, J. (2005). "SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING: NIH Wants Public Access to Papers 'As Soon As Possible'." Science 307(5711): 825-.       The NIH has pushed for early online access to research papers and manuscripts in order to increase public awareness and knowledge about science. However, publishers have battled against early release, since giving free access would significantly decrease revenues from scientific journals and reduce funds available to scientific organizations. The article contrasts pressure to make new research studies available with the pressure to produce sufficient revenues to preserve vital scientific organizations. It is significant in addressing both of these issues in an objective way. << Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Chapter 1 Quick Links The Ethical Basis of RCRH The Nature of Science Research Integrity Professionalism in Science Practical Elements of Responsible Research Conduct Cases Bibliography Chapter 1 Download (PDF)