26. "Use of Human Subjects in Student Projects."
30. 46 8392 (26 January 1981).
10. See, for example, Ethical Issues in Social Science Research and "Regulations Governing Research on Human Subjects: Academic Freedom and the Institutional Review Board," (December 1981): 358–70.
Application deadline - 24 January 2018
9. Testimony of Murray L. Wax (Anthropology), Washington University in St. Louis; Joan E. Sieber (Psychology), California State University–Hayward; and Linda Shopes, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. The full texts of all the remarks submitted to the advisory commission are .
Human Services, Social Work & Family Issues essays …
Some scholars whose research is not funded by the government but whose projects are reviewed by IRBs have also raised concerns that such reviews are a violation per se of academic freedom. From their perspective, the fact (as noted above) that the university, not the government, requires IRB review of their research makes a bad situation worse, for, so the argument runs, prior review of research should not be countenanced by an institution committed to principles of academic freedom. The absence of a direct financial connection between the government and the individual scholar, however, does not relieve the researcher of the professional obligation not to harm human subjects. Accordingly, a university’s effort to ensure that all researchers comply with its human-subject regulations does not offend academic freedom. There is the possibility, of course, that the specific rules adopted by the government or a university to protect human subjects could abridge academic freedom. This would be the case, for example, if IRBs sought to ban research deemed offensive, as some might insist should happen with respect to research on abortion or on race and intelligence. This genuine threat to academic freedom could be removed by rewriting the regulations so they do not sweep unnecessarily broadly or by better educating members of IRBs. But the aim of reducing risks to human research subjects does not itself endanger academic freedom, and its abandonment would yield nothing positive for the freedom of research.