Research ethics
Do research rules restore trust?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Kerasidou argues that consent and ethics-committee rules make research more reliable, but restoring trust also requires trustworthiness and goodwill toward the vulnerable.
Key findings
Trust is a decisive factor in participation. Reliance predicts behaviour; trust assumes goodwill toward vulnerability. Regulation can even signal untrustworthiness. If institutions want trust back, they need ethics education, dedicated teams, and stakeholder engagement, not only compliance systems.
Methodology
The paper reviews the trust-restoration story after research scandals, O’Neill’s scepticism that ‘loss of trust’ matches behaviour, and Baier-style analyses that separate trust from reliance. It then applies that distinction to biomedical research governance.
Limitations
This is conceptual, not a new survey of participants. O’Neill’s behavioural argument is cited, not retested. It does not specify a metric for trustworthiness.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Consent and ethics-committee rules make research more reliable, but restoring trust also requires trustworthiness and goodwill toward the vulnerable.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Discoveries this paper informs or conflicts with
- Research ethics committees are audited on process, not on whether anyone was protected
This paper informs this development.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.