Article ID: CBB040690748

The Belmont Report and Innovative Practice (2020)

unapi

One of the Belmont Report’s most important contributions was the clear and serviceable distinction it drew between standard medical practice and biomedical research. A less well-known achievement of the Report was its conceptualization of innovative practice, a type of medical practice that is often mistaken for research because it is new, untested, or experimental. Although the discussion of innovative practice in Belmont is brief and somewhat cryptic, this does not reflect the significant progress its authors made in understanding innovative practice and the distinctive ethical issues it raises. This article explores the history and broader context of Belmont’s conception of innovative practice, its strengths and weaknesses, and its contemporary relevance for scholars working in bioethics and health policy. While this conception of innovative practice deserves our attention, it is inherently limited in some important ways.

...More
Citation URI
https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB040690748/

Similar Citations

Article Franklin G. Miller; (2020)
Revisiting the Distinction and the Connection Between Research and Practice (/isis/citation/CBB749659220/)

Article Will Schupmann; Jonathan D. Moreno; (2020)
Belmont in Context (/isis/citation/CBB480211234/)

Article Tom L. Beauchamp; (2020)
The Origins and Drafting of the Belmont Report (/isis/citation/CBB975056514/)

Article Søren Holm; (2020)
Belmont in Europe: A Mostly Indirect Influence (/isis/citation/CBB647472223/)

Article Robert G. W. Kirk; Edmund Ramsden; (2021)
"Havens of mercy”: health, medical research, and the governance of the movement of dogs in twentieth-century America (/isis/citation/CBB713465624/)

Article Franklin G. Miller; Jonathan Kimmelman; (2020)
Introduction to the Special Issue on the Belmont Report (/isis/citation/CBB685361978/)

Article Stephen M. Davies; (2021)
Priorities in Medical Research: Elite dynamics in a pivotal episode for British health research (/isis/citation/CBB399620799/)

Article Dietram A. Scheufele; (2022)
Thirty years of science–society interfaces: What’s next? (/isis/citation/CBB213560966/)

Book Peter A. Bandettini; (2020)
fMRI (/isis/citation/CBB645468002/)

Article Sarah Babb; (2021)
The Privatization of Human Research Ethics: An American Story (/isis/citation/CBB733380502/)

Book Sophia Roosth; (2017)
Synthetic: How Life Got Made (/isis/citation/CBB671229087/)

Article Medeiros, Flavia Natercia da Silva; (2013)
Fora da ordem natural: a natureza nos discursos sobre a clonagem e a pesquisa com células-tronco em jornais brasileiros (/isis/citation/CBB001420696/)

Article Jensen, Eric; (2008)
The Dao of Human Cloning: Utopian/Dystopian Hype in the British Press and Popular Films (/isis/citation/CBB000831215/)

Authors & Contributors
Kimmelman, Jonathan
Miller, Franklin G.
Davies, Stephen M.
Peter A. Bandettini
Marques, Tiago Pires
David Vaughn
Concepts
Biology and ethics; bioethics
Moral and ethical aspects
Medical research
Belmont Report (Bioethics)
Biomedicine
Medicine and ethics
Time Periods
20th century, late
21st century
20th century
Places
United States
Great Britain
France
Europe
China
Pennsylvania (U.S.)
Institutions
University of Pennsylvania
National Health Service (Great Britain)
Comments

Be the first to comment!

{{ comment.created_by.username }} on {{ comment.created_on | date:'medium' }}

Log in or register to comment