Free Community Science and the Free Development of Science 英文参考文献.docVIP

下载本文档

4
0
约9.49千字
约 2页
2017-05-11 发布于上海
举报
版权申诉

Free Community Science and the Free Development of Science 英文参考文献.doc

1、本文档共2页，可阅读全部内容。
2、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。
3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
5、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
6、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
7、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
8、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

Free Community Science and the Free Development of Science 英文参考文献

Open access, freely available online Correspondence Open Access to Trials Register trial data. I suggest that institutional review boards refuse to allow human experimentation unless the protocol is ?led in a central (online) repository. The primary data should also be required to be in the public domain (say, within 1–2 years after completion). Data obtained by appealing to altrusitic instincts, similar to money in public charities, are not proprietary information, nor can physicians cash out the trust of their patients. In reality, it is the pharmaceutical industry that stands to gain the most if data are made public as such data inform future research and help smaller, innovative companies avoid redundancy. Voluntarily sticking to higher standards of ethics will raise societal respect for the industry (currently being battered for greed) and attract a more talented workforce, and may even help the current efforts to reform the tort law. Susanne McCabe I ?nd the arguments raised by the PLoS Medicine editors very useful [1] as I had not considered that a scienti?c community would tolerate barring access to registers of trials. It leaves huge gaps for exploitation by privileged groups. It is not only colleagues in research and allied professions who need access but the global community, including members of the public wherever they live, those who participate in trials and those who will be on the receiving end of their outcomes. The annual reports of research ethics committees (RECs) are supposedly in the public domain after approval by Strategic Health Authorities in the UK. But very few members of the public know of their existence or how to access them. Approaches to individual committees even now can meet with varied reactions, from suspicious, defensive, or hostile—reluctantly sending one report, quizzing as to which organisation the enquirer belongs to and why they should want one—to extremely welcoming of interest and discussion. The annual reports s