Search results
1 – 3 of 3‘Dual use research’ is research with results that can potentially cause harm as well as benefits. Harm can be to people, animals or the environment. For most research, harms can…
Abstract
‘Dual use research’ is research with results that can potentially cause harm as well as benefits. Harm can be to people, animals or the environment. For most research, harms can be difficult to predict and quantify, so in this sense almost all research could be seen as having dual use potential. This chapter will present a framework for reviewing dual use research by justifying why the responsibility for approving and conducting research does not sit with Research Ethics Committees (RECs) alone. By mapping out the wider research landscape, it will be argued that both responsibility and accountability for dual use research sits on the shoulders of broader governance structures that reflect the philosophical and political aspirations of society as a whole. RECs are certainly still important for identifying potential ‘dual use research of concern’, and perhaps teasing out some of the details that may be hidden within research plans or projects, but in a well-functioning system should never be the sole gate keepers that determine which research should, and should not, be allowed to proceed.
Details
Keywords
Lina Gyllencreutz, Carl-Pontus Carlsson, Sofia Karlsson and Pia Hedberg
This study describes preparedness of emergency physicians and general practitioners following chemical, radiological and nuclear incidents.
Abstract
Purpose
This study describes preparedness of emergency physicians and general practitioners following chemical, radiological and nuclear incidents.
Design/methodology/approach
Five emergency physicians and six general practitioners were interviewed individually, and data was analysed using qualitative content analysis.
Findings
The study results showed that physicians' preparedness for chemical, radiological and nuclear incidents is linked to one main category: to be an expert and to seek expertise and two categories: preparations before receiving CRN patients, and physical examination and treatment of CRN patients with subcategories.
Research limitations/implications
The results have implications for further research on the complexity of generalist vs specialist competence and knowledge when responding to chemical, radiological and nuclear incidents.
Originality/value
This study provides insights regarding chemical, radiological and nuclear preparedness among physicians at emergency departments and primary healthcare centres.
Details