TY - JOUR T1 - Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical? JF - Journal of Medical Ethics JO - J Med Ethics SP - 517 LP - 520 DO - 10.1136/medethics-2011-100274 VL - 39 IS - 8 AU - Murray Dyck AU - Gary Allen Y1 - 2013/08/01 UR - http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/8/517.abstract N2 - Review boards responsible for vetting the ethical conduct of research have been criticised for their costliness, unreliability and inappropriate standards when evaluating some non-medical research, but the basic value of mandatory ethical review has not been questioned. When the standards that review boards use to evaluate research proposals are applied to review board practices, it is clear that review boards do not respect researchers or each other, lack merit and integrity, are not just and are not beneficent. The few benefits of mandatory ethical review come at a much greater, but mainly hidden, social cost. It is time that responsibility for the ethical conduct of research is clearly transferred to researchers, except possibly in that small proportion of cases where prospective research participants may be so intrinsically vulnerable that their well-being may need to be overseen. ER -