Call for Papers: Special Issue of Research Ethics on Structures for Research Ethics Committees and Research Ethics Review

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-77 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review

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.

Embracing qualitative research: a visual model for nuanced research ethics oversight

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine Doyle ◽  
Patrick Buckley
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Visual Model ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review

The research ethics review systems within universities evolved from the positivist biomedical model but have expanded to include all non-clinical research involving human subjects. However, the application of the biomedical paradigm to qualitative research often creates significant problems. This article highlights the fundamental differences between biomedical and humanities and social science (HSS) research, illustrating that one size does not fit all when it comes to research ethics review. Recognising the resource constraints faced by many higher level education institutions, we develop a model which encompasses the traditional research ethics concepts without requiring separate oversight procedures. After its original construction based on extent research ethics literature, the model was evolved based on findings from qualitative interviews carried out with expert members of research ethics committees. The model can be adapted to multiple contexts through the application of different levels of tolerance in each domain. Our contribution is twofold: (1) to synthesise from the literature an explicit rationale for differentiating research contexts when it comes to research ethics oversight; and (2) to provide research ethics committees with a workable visual model that can be used to aid decision making in diverse research domains.

scholarly journals Ethics Governance Outside the Box: Reimagining Blockchain as a Policy Tool to Facilitate Single Ethics Review and Data Sharing for the 'omics' Sciences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaso Rahimzadeh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
The United States ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Distributed Ledger

Clinical research and health information data sharing are but ripples in a growing wave of reimagined applications of distributed ledger technologies beyond the digital marketplace for which they were originally created. This paper explores the use of distributed ledger technologies to facilitate single institutional ethics review of multi-site, collaborative studies in the dataintensive sciences such as genetics and genomics. Immutable record-keeping, automatable protocol amendments and direct connectivity between stakeholders in the research enterprise (e.g., researchers, research ethics committees, institutions, funders and regulators) comprise several of the conceptual and technological advantages of distributed ledger technologies to research ethics review. This novel-use proposal dovetails recent policy reforms to research ethics review across North America that mandate a single ethics review for any study that takes place across more than one research site. Such reforms in the United States, Canada and Australia replace prior institution-by-institution approval mechanisms that contributed to significant research delays and duplicative procedures for collaborative research worldwide. While this paper centers on the Common Rule revision in the United States, the single ethics review mandate is a noteworthy example of regulation evolving in parallel with advances in the dataintensive sciences it governs. The informational exchange capacities of distributed ledger technologies align well with the procedural goals of streamlining the ethics review system under the new Common Rule ahead of its official implementation on January 19, 2020. The ethical, legal and social implications of applying such technologies to ethics review will be explored in this concept paper. Namely, the paper proposes how administrative data from research ethics committees (REC) could be protected and shared responsibly, as well as interinstitutional cooperation negotiated within a centralized network of research ethics committees using the blockchain. Keywords: Blockchain, Data Sharing, Ethics Review, Governance, IRB, Research, Single Mutual Recognition

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.

Mapping research ethics committees in Africa: Evidence of the growth of ethics review of health research in Africa

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boitumelo Mokgatla ◽  
Carel IJsselmuiden ◽  
Doug Wassenaar ◽  
Mary Kasule
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethics Review

scholarly journals Research ethics committees, ethnographers and imaginations of risk

Ethnography ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 146613812098386
Author(s):  
Kirsten Bell ◽  
LL Wynn
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethnographic Methods ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Institutional Ethics ◽  
The Way

Ethnographers’ concerns about institutional ethics review are by now well-known and several hypotheses have been advanced to explain their complaints. Many have highlighted the lack of epistemological fit between ethnographic methods and ethics review paradigms. Others point to the existence of a “victim narrative” and suggest that circulating horror stories are unrepresentative of ethnographers’ experiences, or argue that ethnographers’ complaints disguise a self-interested and un-reflexive desire to avoid oversight. A final explanation suggests that resistance is restricted to an ageing cohort of scholars raised in an era before ethics review became the norm. Drawing on two surveys of ethnographers conducted a decade apart, we conclude that the most convincing explanation for the longstanding “chorus of complaint” is the fundamental epistemological conflict between ethnographic methods and the way ethics review is currently constituted. We conclude that the time has come to radically reframe and restructure ethics review regimes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document