Article Text

PDF
Paper
How not to argue against mandatory ethics review
  1. David Hunter
  1. Correspondence to Dr David Hunter, Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham, ERI Building, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; d.hunter{at}bham.ac.uk

Abstract

There is considerable controversy about the mandatory ethics review of research. This paper engages with the arguments offered by Murray Dyck and Gary Allen against mandatory review, namely, that this regulation fails to reach the standards that research ethics committees apply to research since it is harmful to the ethics of researchers, has little positive evidence base, leads to significant harms (through delaying valuable research) and distorts the nature of research. As these are commonplace arguments offered by researchers against regulation it is useful to assess their strength and the conclusion that they are taken to support, namely, that we ought to move back to a system of trust in researchers without compulsory regulation. Unfortunately, these arguments are at best weak and to some degree come into conflict in terms of supporting the desired conclusion.

  • Applied and Professional Ethics
  • History of Health Ethics/Bioethics
  • Regulation
  • Research Ethics
  • Social Control of Human Experimentation

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles