@article{d49878df748a4eed883315efba199417,
title = "Response to open peer commentaries on “strangers at the beachside: Research ethics consultation”",
author = "Cho, \{Mildred K.\} and Tobin, \{Sara L.\} and Greely, \{Henry T.\} and Jennifer McCormick and Angie Boyce and David Magnus",
note = "Funding Information: Several other commentaries seemed to assume that the scope our research ethics consultation service was limited to clinical research, that all research that might be considered in such a service is necessarily on a trajectory to the bedside (van Laetham), or that our service was developed only as part of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) planning grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). As we describe in our target article, our proposal for this service was first made in 2003, not as an outgrowth of the CTSA program (it preceded the CTSA initiative), and was initially supported by NIH and the United States Department of Energy as a service intended for genetic researchers before being incorporated into Stanford{\textquoteright}s implementation of a proposed CTSA. While we used the term benchside to describe the kind of research we intended to include in the scope of our service, we did not mean to exclude human subjects research or draw a distinction between clinical trials and basic research. We agree with Fiore that these distinctions are unhelpful, and seek to encourage those who perceive themselves as “bench” researchers (who might or might not also be participating in clinical trials and human subjects research) to feel included in the scope of the service.",
year = "2008",
month = mar,
doi = "10.1080/15265160802132951",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "W4--W6",
journal = "American Journal of Bioethics",
issn = "1526-5161",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "3",
}
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being