RESEARCH ETHICS

Contesting the science/ethics distinction in the review of clinical research

Angus J Dawson¹ and Steve M Yentis²

¹ Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele Hall, Keele University, Staffs, ST5 5BG. UK
² Magill Dept. of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care & Pain Management, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, 369 Fulham Rd., London SW10 9NH, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr. Angus J Dawson
Senior Lecturer in Ethics & Philosophy, Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele Hall, Keele University, Staffs, ST5 5BG. UK; a.j.dawson{at}keele.ac.uk

Recent policy in relation to clinical research proposals in the UK has distinguished between two types of review: scientific and ethical. This distinction has been formally enshrined in the recent changes to research ethics committee (REC) structure and operating procedures, introduced as the UK response to the EU Directive on clinical trials. Recent reviews and recommendations have confirmed the place of the distinction and the separate review processes. However, serious reservations can be mounted about the science/ethics distinction and the policy of separate review that has been built upon it. We argue here that, first, the science/ethics distinction is incoherent, and, second, that RECs should not only be permitted to consider a study’s science, but that they have anobligation do so.

Keywords: Science/ethics distinction; research ethics committees; review of proposals; obligations of research ethics committees; harms and benefits

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Dyer, S., Demeritt, D. (2009). Un-ethical review? Why it is wrong to apply the medical model of research governance to human geography. Prog Hum Geogr 33: 46-64 [Abstract]  
• McGuinness, S (2008). Research ethics committees: the role of ethics in a regulatory authority. J. Med. Ethics 34: 695-700 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Angell, E L, Bryman, A, Ashcroft, R E, Dixon-Woods, M (2008). An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the ethics/scientific quality boundary examined. Qual Saf Health Care 17: 131-136 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Colvin, L. A., Moller, A. M. (2008). Volume 100: clinical investigations: where next?. Br J Anaesth 100: 433-435 [Full Text]