{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015803336259877086, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.404494382022472, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Misleading by Omission: Rethinking the Obligation to Inform Research Subjects about Funding Sources.

Informed consent requirements for medical research have expanded over the past half-century. The Declaration of Helsinki now includes an explicit positive obligation to inform subjects about funding sources. This is problematic in a number of ways and seems to oblige researchers to disclose information irrelevant to most consent decisions. It is argued here that such a problematic obligation involves an "informational fallacy." The aim in the second part of the paper is to provide a better approach to making sense of how a failure to inform about funding sources wrongs subjects: by making appeals to obligations to refrain from misleading by omission. This alternative approach-grounded in a general obligation to refrain from misleading, an obligation that is independent of informed consent-provides a basis for a norm that protects subjects' interests, without the informational fallacy. The approach developed here avoids the problems identified with the currently specified general obligation to inform about funding sources.