scholarly journals Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Benfatto ◽  
◽  
F. Drago ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Final Approval ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Multidisciplinary Staff ◽  
Time Required

Abstract Background This paper highlights the issues that one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees (RECs) might encounter during the approval phase of a clinical trial to identify corrective and preventive actions for promoting a more efficient review process and ensuring review quality. Publications on the subject from Italy and the rest of Europe are limited; encouraging constructive debate can improve RECs’ service to the subject of the clinical trial. Methods We retrospectively reviewed a cohort of 822 clinical trial protocols, initially reviewed by REC, from June 2014 to December 2018. Data collected for each protocol were type of trial, sample size, use of placebo, number and kind of revisions requested by the REC before approval, and time taken for approval. Data for each protocol were collected by a trained clinical research assistant using the REC’s files and electronic archives. Results Almost 45% of the reviewed studies (374/822) required clarifications, significant changes to the documentation, or minor changes before final approval. Conclusions Preventive measures are needed to reduce the number of requested corrections and thus also the time required for approval, while maintaining review quality. All critical points and proposals presented in this paper require harmonization through updates to European regulations, as regulatory harmonization produces better compliance with rules and reduces the number of changes required before the trials’ final approval. Such updates include the development of standardized formats for informed consent, the verification of any evidence in favor of using off-label treatments over placebo as comparators, using multidisciplinary staff in clinical trials with children and adolescents, improving the legal definition of RECs to assign responsibilities and ensure independence, and providing guidance for RECs to engage clinical research assistants in internal audits.

scholarly journals Is It Time to Re-Evaluate the Ethics Governance of Social Media Research?

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 452-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Samuel ◽  
W. Ahmed ◽  
H. Kara ◽  
C. Jessop ◽  
S. Quinton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Media Ethics ◽  
Research Institution ◽  
Media Research ◽  
Social Media Research

This article reports on a U.K. workshop on social media research ethics held in May 2018. There were 10 expert speakers and an audience of researchers, research ethics committee members, and research institution representatives. Participants reviewed the current state of social media ethics, discussing well-rehearsed questions such as what needs consent in social media research, and how the public/private divide differs between virtual and real-life environments. The lack of answers to such questions was noted, along with the difficulties posed for ethical governance structures in general and the work of research ethics committees in particular. Discussions of these issues enabled the creation of two recommendations. The first is for research ethics committees and journal editors to add the category of ‘data subject research’ to the existing categories of ‘text research’ and ‘human subject research’. This would reflect the fact that social media research does not fall into either of the existing categories and so needs a category of its own. The second is that ethical issues should be considered at all stages of social media research, up to and including aftercare. This acknowledges that social media research throws up a large number of ethical issues throughout the process which, under current arrangements for ethical research governance, risks remaining unaddressed.

Should Research Ethics Committees Be Observing the Law or Working by Ethical Principles?

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Warlow
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Individual Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Individual

Recent laws, and their interpretation, have made clinical research more difficult to do, and sometimes impossible. Furthermore the results of that research which can be done may even be unreliable. This is certainly against the public interest, and indeed the individual patient interest as well. But ethics committees have to abide by the law and so even though it is surely unethical to work against the public and individual interest that is exactly what ethics committees now have to endorse. The unintended consequences of the new regulations must be reduced by amending the law.

Alzheimer Disease Ethics—Informed Consent and Related Issues in Clinical Trials: Results of a Survey Among the Members of the Research Ethics Committees in Sweden

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunbrith Peterson ◽  
Anders Wallin
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Informed Consent Process ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Participation In Research

The rapid advances in biomedical sciences have induced special moral and ethical attitudes, which ought to be taken into account. One of the most essential issues is the principles for participation in research of subjects with reduced decision-making capacity. We conducted a questionnaire survey among members of the research ethics committees in Sweden to find out their attitudes to a range of ethical issues related to research on subjects with Alzheimer's disease. One hundred thirty-six of those approached responded (66%), and 117 of the responses (56%) were considered substantially complete. There were 16 questions with fixed reply alternatives. Some central questions concerned the informed consent process. With a few exceptions, there were no significant differences in attitudes between the experts and laypersons, between persons of different ages, and between men and women. However, women and laypersons were in general keener to preserve the patient's integrity and the experts were more willing than the laypersons to allow participation of subjects with dementia in placebo-controlled trials.

scholarly journals Negotiating Responsibility for Navigating Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research: A Review of Miller, Birch, Mauthner, and Jessop’s (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research, Second Edition

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle McCarron
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Research Ethics Boards

Ethics in Qualitative Research (Miller, Birch Mauthner, & Jessop, 2012), now in its second edition, uses a feminist framework to present a variety of issues pertinent to qualitative researchers. Topics include traditional challenges for qualitative researchers (e.g., access to potential participants, informed consent, overlapping roles), as well as those that have garnered more attention in recent years, particularly with regard to uses and consequences of technological advances in research. The book is critical of committees whose function it is to review proposed research and grant research ethics approval (e.g., University Research Ethics Committees [URECs], Research Ethics Boards [REBs], and Institutional Review Boards [IRBs]). The authors of this book are situated within the United Kingdom. The editors take the position that ethics oversight by the researchers themselves is preferable and that such boards and committees are not well equipped to review qualitative research. A rebuttal to this position is presented within this review. Ethics in Qualitative Research provides a good overview of ethical issues that researchers face and is effective in merging theory with practice. It would be strengthened by avoiding the debate over URECs or by offering concrete suggestions for how URECs can improve their reviews of qualitative research.

scholarly journals Research approvals iceberg: helping it melt away

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon E. Kolstoe ◽  
David Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Regulatory Environment ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Governance Processes ◽  
Local Research

Abstract Background In their paper “Research approvals iceberg: how a ‘low-key’ study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better” Petrova and Barclay highlight concerns with the health research regulatory environment in the UK. Discussion As long-standing chairs of NHS research ethics committees, researchers, and also academics in research ethics, we are also often frustrated with the regulatory process in the UK. However, we think that Petrova and Barclay’s analysis is misleading because it conflates research ethics with governance and funding processes, thus failing to adequately distinguish between the national coordinating function of the Health Research Authority, local research governance processes, and interactions with research sponsors and/or the Clinical Research Network.

scholarly journals Correction to: Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Benfatto ◽  
◽  
F. Drago ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

scholarly journals Regulating Research: The Origins and Institutionalization of Research Ethics Committees in Sweden

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Helena Tinnerholm Ljungberg
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Karolinska Institute ◽  
Swedish Society ◽  
The 1960S

Abstract The year 1966 saw the birth of Sweden’s first formal Research Ethics Committee (rec) at the medical university Karolinska Institute (ki). In the following years other ethical committees were institutionalized, coordinated by a working group steered by the Swedish Medical Research Council (smrc). Research ethical issues of a principled nature were also discussed by the Ethics Delegation of the Swedish Society of Medicine (ssm). Between 1966 and 1975, around 500 research proposals were assessed by rec s in Sweden, and the medical community started to follow certain protocols when preparing applications for ethical review. This paper traces the origins and early development of the rec system in Sweden and offers an analysis of their practices, discussions, and assessments through the reading of meeting protocols and correspondence between central actors. The aim is to sketch out how and why the system of research ethics committees emerged, became institutionalized, and developed in Sweden from the 1960s to the early 1980s. This paper connects to the recent empirical turn in historical research on medical research ethics and regulations, by focusing on how the insiders, i.e., the medical community, reacted to new demands of ethical review. The analysis illustrates how the medical researchers interacted with transnational funders, the Patients Association, a broader public, governmental authorities, and parliamentary politics when developing the Swedish rec system.

Ethical issues in genomic research: Proposing guiding principles co-produced with stakeholders

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 194-198
Author(s):  
D Carrieri ◽  
L Jackson ◽  
C Bewshea ◽  
B Prainsack ◽  
J Mansfield ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Support Groups ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Genomic Research ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Patient Support ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
The Uk

Ethical guidance for genomic research is increasingly sought and perceived to be necessary. Although there are pressing ethical issues in genomic research – concerning for example the recruitment of patients/participants; the process of taking consent; data sharing; and returning results to patients/participants – there is still limited useful guidance available for researchers/clinicians or for the research ethics committees who review such projects.  This report outlines the ethical principles and guidance for genomic research co-produced with stakeholders during two workshops which took place in the UK between November 2016 and May 2017. The stakeholders involved in these workshops included: healthcare professionals, genomic research teams, academics, patients, biobank managers, and representatives from the Health Research Authority (HRA), NHS Research Ethics Committees, patient support groups, pharmaceutical industry, and health policy think tanks. The co-produced principles and guidance are specifically aimed at researchers/clinicians and members of NHS Research Ethics Committees, and are formulated with the intention to be clear and accessible, both in terms of content and language, to these groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document