Research ethics committees: values and power in higher education

The establishment of research ethics committees (REC) in China’s higher education institutions (HEI) is lagging far behind western developed countries. This has at least partly directly led to anomie in scientific research ethics, as seen in the recent controversies involving a proposed human head transplant and gene-edited babies. At present, the problems for REC in China’s HEI include lack of regulation, informal ethics reviews, lack of supervision and insufficient ethics review capacity. To counteract these problems, suggested measures include mandatory formation of formal ethics committee, administrative support from HEI, ethics approval letter prior to funding application, formulation of regulations and standard operating procedures, selecting and training for members and independent consultants, training for secretaries and staff, ethics training for investigators, and learning from the experience of HEI outside of China, such as the USA and Canada. The establishment of REC in China’s HEI will greatly enhance the overall quality of ethics reviews in China. In addition to better protecting the rights and welfare of human participants, it is also conducive to maintaining the reputation of China’s HEI.

Download Full-text

Research ethics committees: preserving research integrity and the public trust

West Indian Medical Journal ◽

10.1590/s0043-31442007000200001 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 56 (2) ◽

Author(s):

AM Mullings

Keyword(s):

Research Ethics ◽

Research Integrity ◽

Ethics Committees ◽

Public Trust ◽

Research Ethics Committees ◽

The Public

Download Full-text

The UK Human Tissue Act and the Use of Tissue for Research, Issues for Research Ethics Committees

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.1294379 ◽

2008 ◽

Author(s):

David Hunter

Keyword(s):

Research Ethics ◽

Human Tissue ◽

Ethics Committees ◽

Research Ethics Committees ◽

Research Issues ◽

Tissue Act ◽

Human Tissue Act ◽

The Uk

Download Full-text

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

Medicine Health Care and Philosophy ◽

10.1007/s11019-021-10044-1 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Preventing ethics dumping: the challenges for Kenyan research ethics committees

Research Ethics ◽

10.1177/1747016120925064 ◽

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.

Download Full-text