An argument that the system of boards that license human-subject research is so fundamentally misconceived that it inevitably does more harm than good. Medical and social progress depend on research with human subjects. When that research is done in institutions getting federal money, it is regulated (often minutely) by federally required and supervised bureaucracies called “institutional review boards” (IRBs). Do—can—these IRBs do more harm than good? In The Censor's Hand, Schneider addresses this crucial but long-unasked question. Schneider answers the question by consulting a critical but ignored experience—the law's learning about regulation—and by amassing empirical evidence that is scattered around many literatures. He concludes that IRBs were fundamentally misconceived. Their usefulness to human subjects is doubtful, but they clearly delay, distort, and deter research that can save people's lives, soothe their suffering, and enhance their welfare. IRBs demonstrably make decisions poorly. They cannot be expected to make decisions well, for they lack the expertise, ethical principles, legal rules, effective procedures, and accountability essential to good regulation. And IRBs are censors in the place censorship is most damaging—universities. In sum, Schneider argues that IRBs are bad regulation that inescapably do more harm than good. They were an irreparable mistake that should be abandoned so that research can be conducted properly and regulated sensibly.
Exploring what patients do want gives direction to the author's inquiry into what they should want. What patients want, he believes, is properly more complex and ambiguous than being "empowered." In this book he charts that ambiguity to take the autonomy principle past current pieties into the uncertain realities of the sick room and the hospital ward." "The Practice of Autonomy is a sympathetic but trenchant study of the animating principle of modern bioethics. It speaks with freshness, insight, and even passion to bioethicists and moral philosophers (about their theories), to lawyers (about their methods), to medical sociologists (about their subject), to policy-makers (about their ambitions), to doctors (about their work), and to patients (about their lives)."--BOOK JACKET.
Medical and social progress depend on research with human subjects. When that research is done in institutions getting federal money, it is regulated (often minutely) by federally required and supervised bureaucracies called "institutional review boards" (IRBs). Do -- can -- these IRBs do more harm than good? In "The Censor's Hand," Schneider addresses this crucial but long-unasked question. Schneider answers the question by consulting a critical but ignored experience -- the law's learning about regulation -- and by amassing empirical evidence that is scattered around many literatures. He concludes that IRBs were fundamentally misconceived. Their usefulness to human subjects is doubtful, but they clearly delay, distort, and deter research that can save people's lives, soothe their suffering, and enhance their welfare. IRBs demonstrably make decisions poorly. They cannot be expected to make decisions well, for they lack the expertise, ethical principles, legal rules, effective procedures, and accountability essential to good regulation. And IRBs are censors in the place censorship is most damaging -- universities. In sum, Schneider argues that IRBs are bad regulation that inescapably do more harm than good. They were an irreparable mistake that should be abandoned so that research can be conducted properly and regulated sensibly.
Exploring what patients do want gives direction to the author's inquiry into what they should want. What patients want, he believes, is properly more complex and ambiguous than being "empowered." In this book he charts that ambiguity to take the autonomy principle past current pieties into the uncertain realities of the sick room and the hospital ward." "The Practice of Autonomy is a sympathetic but trenchant study of the animating principle of modern bioethics. It speaks with freshness, insight, and even passion to bioethicists and moral philosophers (about their theories), to lawyers (about their methods), to medical sociologists (about their subject), to policy-makers (about their ambitions), to doctors (about their work), and to patients (about their lives)."--BOOK JACKET.
How mandated disclosure took over the regulatory landscape—and why it failed Perhaps no kind of regulation is more common or less useful than mandated disclosure—requiring one party to a transaction to give the other information. It is the iTunes terms you assent to, the doctor's consent form you sign, the pile of papers you get with your mortgage. Reading the terms, the form, and the papers is supposed to equip you to choose your purchase, your treatment, and your loan well. More Than You Wanted to Know surveys the evidence and finds that mandated disclosure rarely works. But how could it? Who reads these disclosures? Who understands them? Who uses them to make better choices? Omri Ben-Shahar and Carl Schneider put the regulatory problem in human terms. Most people find disclosures complex, obscure, and dull. Most people make choices by stripping information away, not layering it on. Most people find they can safely ignore most disclosures and that they lack the literacy to analyze them anyway. And so many disclosures are mandated that nobody could heed them all. Nor can all this be changed by simpler forms in plainer English, since complex things cannot be made simple by better writing. Furthermore, disclosure is a lawmakers' panacea, so they keep issuing new mandates and expanding old ones, often instead of taking on the hard work of writing regulations with bite. Timely and provocative, More Than You Wanted to Know takes on the form of regulation we encounter daily and asks why we must encounter it at all.
A Study in the Rise of Religion among the Germans of the West, Based on the History of the Evangelischer Kirchenverein des Westens (Evangelical Church Society of the West) 1840-1866
A Study in the Rise of Religion among the Germans of the West, Based on the History of the Evangelischer Kirchenverein des Westens (Evangelical Church Society of the West) 1840-1866
Since its original release in 1939, Carl Schneider's The German Church on the American Frontier has been the premier published resource on the unique "Evangelischer Kirchenverein des Westens" (Evangelical Church Society of the West), 1840-66, which later assumed a wider denominational identity as the German Evangelical Synod of North America, the church of the Niebuhr family. Known eventually as the Evangelical Synod of North America, the group's ecumenical and irenic heritage contributed to mergers that resulted in the Evangelical and Reformed Church, 1934-1957, and thereafter in the United Church of Christ.
An argument that the system of boards that license human-subject research is so fundamentally misconceived that it inevitably does more harm than good. Medical and social progress depend on research with human subjects. When that research is done in institutions getting federal money, it is regulated (often minutely) by federally required and supervised bureaucracies called “institutional review boards” (IRBs). Do—can—these IRBs do more harm than good? In The Censor's Hand, Schneider addresses this crucial but long-unasked question. Schneider answers the question by consulting a critical but ignored experience—the law's learning about regulation—and by amassing empirical evidence that is scattered around many literatures. He concludes that IRBs were fundamentally misconceived. Their usefulness to human subjects is doubtful, but they clearly delay, distort, and deter research that can save people's lives, soothe their suffering, and enhance their welfare. IRBs demonstrably make decisions poorly. They cannot be expected to make decisions well, for they lack the expertise, ethical principles, legal rules, effective procedures, and accountability essential to good regulation. And IRBs are censors in the place censorship is most damaging—universities. In sum, Schneider argues that IRBs are bad regulation that inescapably do more harm than good. They were an irreparable mistake that should be abandoned so that research can be conducted properly and regulated sensibly.
Invitation to Family Law contains such materials as briefs, literary treatments of marriage, divorce, and parenting, and simulated case files from families involved in the social service system. This work reflects the contrasting backgrounds and interests of the authors including constitutional theory, moral philosophy, and the literary tradition of law, community and family. It also presents law and economics, feminist theory and application of legal theory to many practical family law problems. You'll see the authors' common fascination with history, concern with fairness (and fair treatment of the issues), and genuine love of the subject that motivated this work.
Annotation Now in a thoroughly-updated and expanded second edition, Wiley Encyclopedia of Food Science and Technology covers fundamental concepts and practical requirements in food science, as well as cutting-edge technological and industry information. The encyclopedia features A-to-Z coverage of all aspects of food science, including: the properties, analysis, and processing of foods; genetic engineering of new food products; and nutrition. In addition, nontechnical information is included, such as descriptions of selected scientific institutions, and research and development in government agencies. Like the first edition, this Second Edition will become the standard reference for food scientists, bioengineers, and biotechnologists. From reviews of the first edition: " ... fills a definite need in the food science and technology literature ... I have little doubt that this encyclopedia will become one of the classic works in this ever-growing subject."--Food and Chemistry
This book is a volume in the Penn Press Anniversary Collection. To mark its 125th anniversary in 2015, the University of Pennsylvania Press rereleased more than 1,100 titles from Penn Press's distinguished backlist from 1899-1999 that had fallen out of print. Spanning an entire century, the Anniversary Collection offers peer-reviewed scholarship in a wide range of subject areas.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.