scholarly journals Trust and regulatory organisations: The role of local knowledge and facework in research ethics review

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 662-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam M. Hedgecoe
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Interpersonal Trust ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Oversight Body

While trust is seen as central to most social relations, most writers, including sociologists of science, assume that modern trust relations – especially those in regulatory relationships – tend towards the impersonal. Drawing on ethnographic material from one kind of scientific oversight body – research ethics committees based in the UK NHS – this paper argues that interpersonal trust is crucial to regulatory decision-making and intimately bound up with the way in which these oversight bodies work, and that as such they build on, rather than challenge, the trust-based nature of the scientific community.

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 Implementing a National Approach to Research Ethics Review during a Pandemic – the Irish Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 63
Author(s):  
Aileen Sheehy ◽  
Jennifer Ralph James ◽  
Mary Horgan
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Human Participants ◽  
High Standards ◽  
National Approach

The surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research studies involving human participants in response to the pandemic has meant that research ethics committees across the world have been challenged to adapt their processes to meet demand while retaining high standards of review. Ethics review during this pandemic remains essential to ensure the safety, dignity and well-being of research participants, however research ethics committees are now faced with new, and often complex, ethics considerations and logistical challenges. This Open Letter looks specifically at the Irish experience of establishing a national approach to research ethics review amidst a global pandemic. This represents Ireland’s first National Research Ethics Committee, which provided the research community with an expedited and ‘single national opinion’ for ethics review for COVID-related research. The insights gleaned and lessons learned from the Irish experience may inform emergency responses to future pandemics or public health emergencies.

The Influence of Dynamic Perspectives on Poverty Analysis and Anti-Poverty Policy in the UK

2004 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETE ALCOCK
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Analysis ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Longitudinal Research ◽  
Policy Intervention ◽  
Structure And Agency ◽  
Dynamic Perspective ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Academic Debate

This article provides an overview of the academic debates and recent research on the dynamic perspective on poverty and anti-poverty policy. Renewed theoretical interest in dynamic analysis is discussed in the context of the more general debate about the roles of structure and agency in social relations. This is followed by a brief outline of some of the new empirical datasets now available for longitudinal research, in particular in the UK. The implications of dynamic analysis for our understanding of poverty are summarised, followed by a discussion of the impact of this on anti-poverty policy, again drawing largely on the UK, and some specifically English, developments. The article concludes that dynamic analysis and the role of agency has had a significant impact on both academic debate and policy intervention on poverty, but that this should not be interpreted as leading to an abandonment of policies for structural reform aimed at redistributing resources to the poor.

scholarly journals III. The role of the Research Ethics Committees in the regulation of Pharma-Sponsored studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos A. Aguilar-Salinas ◽  
Virginia Pascual-Ramos ◽  
Juan G. Sierra-Madero ◽  
Alvar Loria-Acereto ◽  
Elena Zambrano-González ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document