Assessment of Research Ethics Committees

2017 ◽  
pp. 291-294
Author(s):  
Henry Silverman
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees

scholarly journals Philosophers in research ethics committees—what do they think they’re doing? An empirical-ethical analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Gauckler
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Applied Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Philosophical Perspective ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Practical Level

AbstractResearch ethics committees in Germany usually don’t have philosophers as members and if so, only contingently, not provided for by statute. This is interesting from a philosophical perspective, assuming that ethics is a discipline of philosophy. It prompts the question what role philosophers play in those committees they can be found in. Eight qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the self-perception of philosophers regarding their contribution to research ethics committees. The results show that the participants generally don’t view themselves as ethics experts. They are rather unanimous on the competencies they think they contribute to the committee but not as to whether those are philosophical competencies or applied ethical ones. In some cases they don’t see a big difference between their role and the role of the jurist member. In the discussion section of this paper I bring up three topics, prompted by the interviews, that need to be addressed: (1) I argue that the interviewees’ unwillingness to call themselves ethics experts might have to do with a too narrow understanding of ethics expertise. (2) I argue that the disagreement among the interviewees concerning the relationship between moral philosophy and applied ethics might be explained on a theoretical or on a practical level. (3) I argue that there is some lack of clarity concerning the relationship between ethics and law in research ethics committees and that further work needs to be done here. All three topics, I conclude, need further investigation.

scholarly journals Preventing ethics dumping: the challenges for Kenyan research ethics committees

2020 ◽  
pp. 174701612092506
Author(s):  
Kate Chatfield ◽  
Doris Schroeder ◽  
Anastasia Guantai ◽  
Kirana Bhatt ◽  
Elizabeth Bukusi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
System Resource

Ethics dumping is the practice of undertaking research in a low- or middle-income setting which would not be permitted, or would be severely restricted, in a high-income setting. Whilst Kenya operates a sophisticated research governance system, resource constraints and the relatively low number of accredited research ethics committees limit the capacity for ensuring ethical compliance. As a result, Kenya has been experiencing cases of ethics dumping. This article presents 11 challenges in the context of preventing ethics dumping in Kenya, namely variations in governance standards, resistance to double ethics review, resource constraints, unresolved issues in the management of biological samples, unresolved issues in the management of primary data, unsuitable informed consent procedures, cultural insensitivity, differing standards of care, reluctance to provide feedback to research communities, power differentials which facilitate the exploitation of local researchers and lack of local relevance and/or affordability of the resultant products. A reflective approach for researchers, built around the values of fairness, respect, care and honesty, is presented as a means of taking shared responsibility for preventing ethics dumping.

Research ethics committees

BMJ ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 300 (6724) ◽  
pp. 608-608
Author(s):  
M. Drury
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees

Differences between research ethics committees

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. L. Edwards ◽  
Tracey Stone ◽  
Teresa Swift
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Local Conditions ◽  
Ethical Judgments ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Review

Objectives:To examine differences in the ethical judgments made by Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).Methods:We did a review of the literature and included any study that attempted to compare the ethical judgments made by different RECs or IRBs when reviewing one or more protocol.Results:There were twenty-six articles reporting such discrepancies across Europe, within the United Kingdom, Spain, and United States. Of these studies, there were only five reports of some RECs approving while others rejecting the same protocol. All studies, however, reported differences in the clarifications and revisions asked of researchers regarding consent, recruitment, risks and benefits, compensation arrangements, and scientific issues.Conclusions:The studies were generally anecdotal reports of researchers trying to do research. New rules requiring a single ethical opinion for multi-site research at least in European Member States may simply conceal problematic issues in REC decision making. In the last analysis, we should expect a certain degree of variation and differences if we are to keep a committee system of review, although there is a pressing need to investigate the way in which RECs make these judgments. In particular, we need to identify the source of any aberrations, distortions, or confusions that could arbitrarily affect these judgments. Furthermore, local conditions remain important ethical considerations and should not be sidelined in pursuit of greater “consistency.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document