Article Text
PDF
Abstract
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.
- Science/ethics distinction
- research ethics committees
- review of proposals
- obligations of research ethics committees
- harms and benefits
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the ethics/scientific quality boundary examined
- Proportional ethical review and the identification of ethical issues
- Should research ethics committees be told how to think?
- The experiences of ethics committee members: contradictions between individuals and committees
- The ESRC research ethics framework and research ethics review at UK universities: rebuilding the Tower of Babel REC by REC
- Ethics review of research: in pursuit of proportionality
- Efficiency and the proposed reforms to the NHS research ethics system
- Research ethics committees in Europe: implementing the directive, respecting diversity
- Strengthening ethics committees for health-related research in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review
- Is the NHS research ethics committees system to be outsourced to a low-cost offshore call centre? Reflections on human research ethics after the Warner Report