Talk:Common Rule

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]