Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Reason and Intuition01:37

Reason and Intuition

7.5K
The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the...
7.5K
Reasoning01:30

Reasoning

435
Reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. It is integral to problem-solving, decision-making, and critical thinking. Reasoning can be inductive or deductive. Reasoning involves transforming information into conclusions, which is essential for problem-solving, decision-making, and critical thinking.
Inductive reasoning involves deriving generalizations from specific observations. This type of reasoning helps form beliefs about the world. For example,...
435
Deductive Reasoning01:16

Deductive Reasoning

68.2K
Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is the type of logic used in hypothesis-based science. In deductive reasoning, the pattern of thinking moves in the opposite direction as compared to inductive reasoning, which means that it uses a general principle or law to predict specific results. From those general principles, a scientist can deduce and predict the specific results that would be valid as long as the general principles are valid.
For example, a researcher can deduce specific predictions...
68.2K
Inductive Reasoning00:59

Inductive Reasoning

67.3K
Inductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion. It is uncertain and operates in degrees to which the conclusions are credible. As such, inductive arguments can be weak or strong, rather than valid or invalid, and conclusions can be used to formulate testable, falsifiable hypotheses.
Inductive reasoning is common in descriptive science. A life scientist makes observations and records them. This data can be qualitative or...
67.3K
Tumor Progression02:07

Tumor Progression

7.4K
Tumor progression is a phenomenon where the pre-formed tumor acquires successive mutations to become clinically more aggressive and malignant. In the 1950s, Foulds first described the stepwise progression of cancer cells through successive stages.
Colon cancer is one of the best-documented examples of tumor progression. Early mutation in the APC gene in colon cells causes a small growth on the colon wall called a polyp. With time, this polyp grows into a benign, pre-cancerous tumor. Further...
7.4K
mTOR Signaling and Cancer Progression03:03

mTOR Signaling and Cancer Progression

4.8K
The mammalian target of rapamycin or mTOR protein was discovered in 1994 due to its direct interaction with rapamycin. The protein gets its name from a yeast homolog called TOR. The mTOR protein complex in mammalian cells plays a major role in balancing anabolic processes such as the synthesis of proteins, lipids, and nucleotides and catabolic processes, such as autophagy in response to environmental cues, such as availability of nutrients and growth factors.
The mTOR pathway or the...
4.8K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Academic Advocacy: Opportunities to Influence Health and Science Policy Under U.S. Lobbying Law.

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges·2019
Same author

A Belmont Reboot: Building a Normative Foundation for Human Research in the 21st Century.

The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics·2019
Same author

Reviving Human Research in Costa Rica.

Ethics & human research·2019
Same author

What do revised U.S. rules mean for human research?

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2017
Same author

Modernizing Research Regulations Is Not Enough: It's Time to Think Outside the Regulatory Box.

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2017
Same author

CTSA Institution Responses to Proposed Common Rule Changes: Did They Get What They Wanted?

Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE·2017
Same journal

A Study of Reliance Agreement Templates Used by U.S. Research Institutions.

IRB·2021
Same journal

The Revised and Final Common Rule: An Unfinished Story.

IRB·2019
Same journal

Reining in IRB Review in the Revised Common Rule.

IRB·2019
Same journal

On Improving Oversight and Enhancing Protections.

IRB·2019
Same journal

Understanding, Therapeutic Misconceptions and Perceptions, and Enrollment Decision-Making: A Pediatric Preventive Malaria Trial in Rural Tanzania.

IRB·2019
Same journal

A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing the National Cancer Institute's Original and Revised Consent Form Templates.

IRB·2019
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 30, 2026

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task
06:08

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Published on: July 22, 2025

935

Reasonable Research Oversight: A Work in Progress.

Suzanne M Rivera1

  • 1Case Western Reserve University.

IRB
|February 2, 2019
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

The updated Common Rule aims to modernize human research regulations but may hinder scientific progress. A better approach involves public education and accountability for misconduct, not stricter rules for all researchers.

Keywords:
Common Rulebiospecimen researchhuman research subjectsinformed consent

More Related Videos

Improving Strength, Power, Muscle Aerobic Capacity, and Glucose Tolerance through Short-term Progressive Strength Training Among Elderly People
12:59

Improving Strength, Power, Muscle Aerobic Capacity, and Glucose Tolerance through Short-term Progressive Strength Training Among Elderly People

Published on: July 5, 2017

13.2K
Detection of Lung Tumor Progression in Mice by Ultrasound Imaging
04:43

Detection of Lung Tumor Progression in Mice by Ultrasound Imaging

Published on: February 27, 2020

7.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 30, 2026

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task
06:08

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Published on: July 22, 2025

935
Improving Strength, Power, Muscle Aerobic Capacity, and Glucose Tolerance through Short-term Progressive Strength Training Among Elderly People
12:59

Improving Strength, Power, Muscle Aerobic Capacity, and Glucose Tolerance through Short-term Progressive Strength Training Among Elderly People

Published on: July 5, 2017

13.2K
Detection of Lung Tumor Progression in Mice by Ultrasound Imaging
04:43

Detection of Lung Tumor Progression in Mice by Ultrasound Imaging

Published on: February 27, 2020

7.3K

Area of Science:

  • Human Subjects Research
  • Regulatory Science
  • Bioethics

Background:

  • The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) updated the Common Rule, a significant regulation for human subjects research, after a six-year review.
  • Existing regulations had been in place for over thirty years, necessitating modernization.
  • The update aimed to improve and streamline the regulatory landscape for research involving human participants.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the implications of the updated Common Rule on scientific research.
  • To evaluate whether the updated regulations facilitate or impede scientific discovery.
  • To propose alternative strategies for enhancing human research oversight.

Main Methods:

  • Review of the updated Common Rule published on January 19, 2017.
  • Analysis of the regulatory changes in the context of facilitating scientific advancement.
  • Comparative assessment of proposed changes against the goals of protecting human subjects and promoting research.

Main Results:

  • The updated Common Rule's changes appear reactive, focusing on preventing misconduct rather than enabling research.
  • The regulations may inadvertently create barriers for legitimate scientific endeavors.
  • There is a perceived need for a balanced approach that doesn't impede all research.

Conclusions:

  • Reframing research as a social good is essential, requiring reasonable oversight.
  • Public education on data and specimen use can foster trust and support for research.
  • Accountability mechanisms for deliberate violations are more effective than broad regulatory restrictions.