Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
- Ethics Committees/Consultation
- Research Ethics
- Applied and Professional Ethics
- Decision-making
- Policy Guidelines/Inst. Review Boards/Review Cttes.
It is generally unquestioned that human subjects research review boards should assess the ethical acceptability of protocols. It says so right on the tin, after all: they are explicitly called research ethics committees in the UK. But it is precisely those sorts of unchallenged assumptions that should, from time to time, be assessed and critiqued, in case they are in fact unfounded. John Stuart Mill's objection to suppressers of dissent is instructive here: “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error”.1
Andrew Moore and Andrew Donnelly's compelling article, “The job of ‘ethics committees’”, is just this sort of challenge to conventional wisdom, a rejection of the notion that review boards should be considering ethical matters at all.2 If true, we should be substantially reforming our research ethics policies. And if false, rebuttals would help strengthen and ground the otherwise unquestioned assumption of the role of ethics committees. As it happens, I will argue that their critiques fall into the second category. While mistaken, they present a valuable opportunity to clarify the role of ethics committees and their relationship to relevant codes. In particular, I will defend a hybrid account where codes (those with regulatory force, in particular) have strict primacy, but leave significant room for review boards …
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Feature article
- Commentary
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The job of ‘ethics committees’
- The ‘ethics committee’ job is administrative: a response to commentaries
- The structure of ethics review: expert ethics committees and the challenge of voluntary research euthanasia
- Should local research ethics committees monitor research they have approved?
- and who are clinical ethics committees for?
- Ethical difficulties in clinical practice: experiences of European doctors
- A cross-sectional survey to investigate community understanding of medical research ethics committees
- ‘Value, values and valued’: a tripod for organisational ethics
- Running an international paediatric non-commercial clinical trial
- Ethics committees and the legality of research