Research ethics committees—animal ethics committees (AECs) for animal-based research and institutional research boards (IRBs) for human subjects—have a key role in research governance, but there has been little study of the factors influencing their effectiveness. The objectives of this study were to examine how the effectiveness of a research ethics committee is influenced by committee composition and dynamics, recruitment of members, workload, participation level and member turnover. As a model, 28 members of AECs at four universities in western Canada were interviewed. Committees were selected to represent variation in the number and type of protocols reviewed, and participants were selected to include different types of committee members. We found that a bias towards institutional or scientific interests may result from (1) a preponderance of institutional and scientist members, (2) an intimidating atmosphere for community members and other minority members, (3) recruitment of community members who are affiliated with the institution and (4) members joining for reasons other than to fulfil the committee mandate. Thoroughness of protocol review may be influenced by heavy workloads, type of review process and lack of full committee participation. These results, together with results from the literature on research ethics committees, suggested potential ways to improve the effectiveness of research ethics committees.
- AEC, animal ethics committee
- IRB, institutional research board
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
↵i One committee’s policy stated that decisions were to be made by majority vote. However, committee members reported making decisions by consensus.
↵ii In Canada, the Canadian Council on Animal Careref11 requires that the AEC includes “at least one person representing community interests and concerns, and who has no affiliation with the institution”.
↵iii In the UK, face-to-face meetings may not be necessary in ethical review processes, but a regular deliberation of committee members is required.ref18
Funding: This research was funded by The International Foundation for Ethical Research (IFER) through a postgraduate fellowship; by the UBC Animal Welfare Program that is funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the BCSPCA; the BC Veterinary Medical Association; and other sponsors listed on the programme website at www.landfood.ubc.ca/animalwelfare/. The sponsors had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Competing interests: None.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Different views on ethics: how animal ethics is situated in a committee culture
- Animal researchers shoulder a psychological burden that animal ethics committees ought to address
- Institution animal care and use committees need greater ethical diversity
- Lay community perceptions and treatment options for hypertension in rural northern Ghana: a qualitative analysis
- How community participation in water and sanitation interventions impacts human health, WASH infrastructure and service longevity in low-income and middle-income countries: a realist review
- Involving im/migrant community members for knowledge co-creation: the greater the desired involvement, the greater the need for capacity building
- “I think people have been in survival mode”: a qualitative study of community connectivity in a neighbourhood of North East England before and during COVID-19
- Learning health systems, clinical equipoise and the ethics of response adaptive randomisation
- Quitting smoking and experience of smoking cessation interventions among UK Bangladeshi and Pakistani adults: the views of community members and health professionals
- Design of a Community Ownership and Preparedness Index: using data to inform the capacity development of community-based groups