|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Sorry I am stuck for the moment, the title should be changed to Common Rule, then the link to here will work!--Mgoodyear 19:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Ref for the scope of the Common Rule?
The Common Rule essentially describes the various research activities that are either exempt or candidates for expedited review. Thus, it identifies the set of activities that are excluded from full review, rather than included. The implication is therefore that, by default, all other human subject research is defined as requiring a full review. This appears to be quite inverted, legally speaking, since most other US federal rules define the activities that are to be controlled or governed. The basic legal interpretation of statutes is that "what is not forbidden is permitted", but here we have the opposite.
I'd like to make this point in some revisions to the Institutional Review Board article, and I recall reading about this criticism of the Common Rule somewhere, but now I can't find it again. Is anyone aware of some law journal article or online commentary paper that makes this point? I'm afraid that defining this subtle concept in a Google Scholar search is proving quite difficult. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)