This paper is an examination of how research ethics committees have evolved from being advisory committees to more formal regulatory authorities. It is argued that the role of ethics committees should be broader than simple ethical review. Inconsistency in outcome should not be taken to signal failure. Procedural fairness is of the utmost importance. Nor should ethics committees be seen to diminish the ethical responsibilities of researchers themselves.
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.
Competing interests: None.
↵i Take, for example the following, from the ESRC Research Ethics Framework: “If referees or assessors disagree with the proposed ethical review, this will either be grounds for rejection of an application where it calls into question researcher competence or the feasibility or validity of their proposal, or for a conditional award requiring further review” (p2).6 It is clear that this allows for many other issues to give rise to rejection of research than just ethical issues.
↵ii Later on I mention how, similarly, subjectivity with regard to ethical viewpoints will have the same effect.
↵iii How the role of the ethicist is defined is open to many interpretations. For example, it could be suggested that an ethicist should be an individual who has undergone formal ethical training. Alternatively, the role could simply be given to an individual whom the committee appoints to act as an ethicist, with requirement that reasons be provided for thinking the person suitable.
↵iv An examination of the role of citizens’ juries within the healthcare system is beyond the scope of this paper. However, for an illustration of some of the issues in other contexts, see articles by Price17 and Syrett18.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Assessment of the ethical review process for non-pharmacological multicentre studies in Germany on the basis of a randomised surgical trial
- Ethics committees and the legality of research
- 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
- Bureaucracy of ethics applications
- The structure of ethics review: expert ethics committees and the challenge of voluntary research euthanasia
- The Ad Hoc Advisory Group’s proposals for research ethics committees: a mixture of the timid, the revolutionary, and the bizarre
- A cross-sectional survey to investigate community understanding of medical research ethics committees
- Implementation of the EU clinical trial regulation transforms the ethics committee systems and endangers ethical standards
- Problems and development strategies for research ethics committees in China’s higher education institutions
- Getting the justification for research ethics review right