Was this experiment ethically problematic? Or was it a useful study involving common practices on Twitter?

The National Research Act was a landmark in research ethics oversight. But it needs to be updated for modern times, including research with biospecimens, AI, and xenotransplantation.

Dualists rejoice! That much-maligned ontology got a new lease on life recently with vividly contrasting cases involving Scarlett Johannsen’s voice and Elon Musk’s brain.

The more time passes, the more Nixon looks like a strange, unlikely political ally.

The sole virtue of Elon Musk’s report on X, formerly known as Twitter, of the first in-human brain implant by his company, Neuralink, is its brevity: “The first human received...

New inquiry examines ethics of 1960's experiments involving Punjabi immigrants in the United Kingdom and radioactive chapatis.

I am currently writing up the results of a retrospective chart review of patients’ consent or refusal for medical students to perform pelvic exams on them when they’re under anesthesia and sedated. I asked ChatGPT to summarize the ethical issues and tell me what sources it used to generate its response.

A recent Science article published the results of an experiment conducted on 20 million LinkedIn users over five years involving the “People You May Know” algorithm. None of these people knew they were part of an experiment, nor did they consent to participate.

Like many other Ukrainians, I woke up on February 24 from the sounds of explosions. I had some difficult decisions to make. I treat cancer patients.

A bill for $476 for inquiring about participating in a medical research study? This is no joke.