What are the four Belmont principles?

1. Cadigan RJ et al., “Public Comments on Proposed Regulatory Reforms That Would Impact Biospecimen Research: The Good, the Bad, and the Puzzling,” IRB 37, no. 5 (2015): 1–10; S. M. Rivera et al., “CTSA Institution Responses to Proposed Common Rule Changes: Did They Get What They Wanted?,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 12, no. 2 (2017): 79–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Department of Health and Human Services, “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators,” Federal Register 76, no. 143 (2011): 44512–31. [Google Scholar]

3. Department of Health and Human Services, “Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects,” Federal Register 80, no. 173 (2015): 53933–4061. [Google Scholar]

4. Id., at 53938.

5. Beecher HK, “Ethics and Clinical Research,” N. Engl. J. Med 274, no. 24 (1966): 1354–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Lillie EO et al., “The N-of-1 Clinical Trial: The Ultimate Strategy for Individualizing Medicine?,” Personalized Medicine 8, no. 2 (2011): 161–73. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Glasgow RE et al., “National Institutes of Health Approaches to Dissemination and Implementation Science: Current and Future Directions,” American Journal of Public Health 102, no. 7 (2012): 1274–81. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Wolf SM et al., “Managing Incidental Findings and Research Results in Genomic Research Involving Biobanks and Archived Data Sets,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 361–84. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Clayton EW, “Incidental Findings in Genetics Research Using Archived DNA,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 286–91. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Roden DM et al., “Development of a Large-Scale De-Identified DNA Biobank to Enable Personalized Medicine,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 84, no. 3 (2008): 362–69. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Nuremburg Code, “Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernburg Miltary Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10: Nuernburg, October 1946-April 1949,” (1947); World Medical Association, “WMA Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects,” (1964). [Google Scholar]

12. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, “The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research,” (1979). [PubMed]

13. Richardson HS and Belsky L, “The Ancillary-Care Responsibilities of Medical Researchers: An Ethical Framework for Thinking About the Clinical Care That Researchers Owe Their Subjects,” Hastings Center Report 34, no. 1 (2004): 25–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. See E. W. Clayton, supra note 9; Burke W, Evans BJ, and Jarvik GP, “Return of Results: Ethical and Legal Distinctions between Research and Clinical Care,” American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics 166, no. 1 (2014): 105–11. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Beskow LM and Burke W, “Offering Individual Genetic Research Results: Context Matters,” Science Translational Medicine 2, no. 38 (2010): 38cm20. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Shalowitz DI and Miller FG, “Disclosing Individual Results of Clinical Research: Implications of Respect for Participants,” Journal of the American Medical Association 294, no. 6 (2005): 737–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Wolf SM, “Return of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings: Facing the Challenges of Translational Science,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 14(2013): 557–77. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Shore N, “Re-Conceptualizing the Belmont Report,” Journal of Community Practice 14, no. 4 (2006): 5–26. [Google Scholar]

19. Grady C et al., “Broad Consent for Research with Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions,” American Journal of Bioethics 15, no. 9 (2015): 34–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. See R. J. Cadigan et al., supra note 1.

21. Brothers KB et al., “When Participants in Genomic Research Grow Up: Contact and Consent at the Age of Majority,” The Journal of Pediatrics 168(2016): 226–31.e1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Beauchamp TL and Childress JF, Principles of Biomedical Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979). [Google Scholar]

23. Beauchamp and Childress proposed autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice as the four primary principles for bioethics. The Belmont Report proposes respect for persons, beneficence, and justice as the three principles that should ground human research ethics. There is significant overlap in these accounts, however. The discussion of respect for persons in the Belmont Report highlights that this principle encompasses autonomy. Similarly, non-maleficence can also be understood as a dimension of the principle of beneficence.

24. Vanderpool HY, The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21st Century (Frederick, MD: University Publishing Group, Inc, 1996). [Google Scholar]

25. Churchill LR, Fanning JB, and Schenck D, What Patients Teach: The Everyday Ethics of Health Care (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016). [Google Scholar]

26. Id.

27. Vitak J, Shilton K, and Ashktorab Z, “Beyond the Belmont Principles: Ethical Challenges, Practices, and Beliefs in the Online Data Research Community,” abstract from presentation at 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, printed in Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (2016): 941–53. [Google Scholar]

28. See N. Shore, supra note 18.

29. Elster J, Deliberative Democracy, vol. 1 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998); H. A. Linstone and M. Turoff, The Delphi Method (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975). [Google Scholar]

30. Rivera SM et al., “Modernizing Research Regulations Is Not Enough: It’s Time to Think Outside the Regulatory Box,” American Journal of Bioethics 17, no. 7 (2017): 1–3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. King NM, Henderson G, and Stein J, Beyond Regulations: Ethics in Human Subjects Research (Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press Books, 1999). [Google Scholar]

32. Friesen P et al., “Rethinking the Belmont Report?,” American Journal of Bioethics 17, no. 7 (2017): 15–21; E. Y. Adashi, L. B. Walters, and J. A. Menikoff, “The Belmont Report at 40: Reckoning with Time,” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. 10 (2018): 1345–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]