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

Ethics in Research01:56

Ethics in Research

25.3K
Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound.
25.3K
Bias01:22

Bias

7.2K
Bias refers to any tendency that prevents a question from being considered unprejudiced. In research, bias occurs when one outcome or answer is selected or encouraged over others in sampling or testing. Bias can occur during any research phase, including study design, data collection, analysis, and publication.
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
7.2K
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

330
Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
330
Humanistic Psychology01:24

Humanistic Psychology

2.3K
Humanistic psychology emerged in the mid-20th century as a response to the deterministic and pessimistic nature of behaviorism and psychoanalysis. While behaviorism focused on observable behaviors influenced by the environment and psychoanalysis delved into unconscious motivations, both theories suggested that human actions lacked free will. In contrast, humanistic psychology offers a perspective that emphasizes the innate potential for goodness and growth within every individual.
This approach...
2.3K
Bias in Epidemiological Studies01:29

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

1.1K
Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:  
1.1K
Ethics and Bioethics01:22

Ethics and Bioethics

2.6K
Ethics is a philosophical study of moral actions. Ethics attempts to determine what is valuable for individuals and society. It examines the rational justification of moral judgments and analyzes what is morally just, fair, and right. Bioethics is a sub-discipline of applied ethics that analyzes the philosophical, social, and legal issues in life sciences and medicine. Ethical theories serve as a foundation for decision-making and represent the viewpoints from which people seek direction. They...
2.6K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Beneficence as a principle in human research.

Monash bioethics review·2016
Same author

Justice in human research ethics. A conceptual and practical guide.

Monash bioethics review·2013
Same author

Contextualising merit and integrity within human research.

Monash bioethics review·2012
Same author

Protecting health information privacy in research: how much law do Australians need?

The Medical journal of Australia·2005
Same author

Confidentiality and privacy: beyond legal duties.

The Medical journal of Australia·2003
Same journal

Autonomy under uncertainty: the structural limits of substituted judgment in clinical practice.

Monash bioethics review·2026
Same journal

Clinical ethical issues in paediatric practice: exploring the awareness and opinions of paediatricians in order to grow paediatric clinical ethics services in a Malaysian teaching hospital.

Monash bioethics review·2026
Same journal

Should Australia implement regulatory changes to include Normothermic Regional Perfusion in organ donation and change our definition of death?

Monash bioethics review·2026
Same journal

The challenge of forming solidarity in Germany as a culturally diverse society during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Monash bioethics review·2026
Same journal

Changing Discourse on In Vitro Gametogenesis: Expectation, Scientific Reality, and the Ethics of Hype.

Monash bioethics review·2026
Same journal

Public engagement and bioethics as natural allies.

Monash bioethics review·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 23, 2025

Working with Human Tissues for Translational Cancer Research
07:48

Working with Human Tissues for Translational Cancer Research

Published on: November 26, 2015

10.3K

Vulnerability in human research.

Ian J Pieper1, Colin J H Thomson2

  • 1Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St., Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia. pieper@live.co.uk.

Monash Bioethics Review
|April 29, 2020
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Vulnerability in human research ethics requires nuanced consideration beyond broad categories. This paper critiques current practices, advocating for a principle-based approach to protect all research participants ethically.

Keywords:
Human Research EthicsHuman Research Ethics Committee (HREC)IRBVulnerability

More Related Videos

The Resident-intruder Paradigm: A Standardized Test for Aggression, Violence and Social Stress
09:12

The Resident-intruder Paradigm: A Standardized Test for Aggression, Violence and Social Stress

Published on: July 4, 2013

72.3K
In Vivo Functional Study of Disease-associated Rare Human Variants Using Drosophila
06:41

In Vivo Functional Study of Disease-associated Rare Human Variants Using Drosophila

Published on: August 20, 2019

14.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Dec 23, 2025

Working with Human Tissues for Translational Cancer Research
07:48

Working with Human Tissues for Translational Cancer Research

Published on: November 26, 2015

10.3K
The Resident-intruder Paradigm: A Standardized Test for Aggression, Violence and Social Stress
09:12

The Resident-intruder Paradigm: A Standardized Test for Aggression, Violence and Social Stress

Published on: July 4, 2013

72.3K
In Vivo Functional Study of Disease-associated Rare Human Variants Using Drosophila
06:41

In Vivo Functional Study of Disease-associated Rare Human Variants Using Drosophila

Published on: August 20, 2019

14.1K

Area of Science:

  • Human Research Ethics
  • Bioethics
  • Social Sciences

Background:

  • Prior ethics review aims to protect vulnerable populations in human research.
  • Contemporary views on vulnerability encompass access, consent, selection bias, and generalizability.
  • Critiques question the efficacy of checklist approaches to participant protection.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To explore how Australian human research ethics guidance documents address vulnerability.
  • To propose an alternative perspective on vulnerability in research ethics.
  • To inform researchers and ethics committees on applying ethical principles.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of human research ethics guidance documents in Australia.
  • Review of contemporary discussions on research ethics and vulnerability.
  • Application of principles from the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.

Main Results:

  • Current approaches may oversimplify vulnerability by using broad categories, potentially undermining 'ethical equality'.
  • Labeling specific groups as vulnerable might inadvertently suggest others require less ethical scrutiny.
  • Existing guidance may not adequately capture the complexity of ethical decision-making regarding vulnerability.

Conclusions:

  • Relying on enumerated lists for vulnerability can be problematic.
  • A principle-based approach, focusing on respect and justice, offers a more robust framework for ethical decision-making.
  • Ethical considerations for vulnerability should be applied with nuance to all research participants, not just predefined groups.