Assessing the animal ethics review process

Author(s):  
O. Varga ◽  
P. Sandøe ◽  
I. A. S. Olsson
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aidan Ferguson ◽  
Zubin Master

Large scale, multisite clinical research trials have been increasing in frequency. As it stands currently, a research project performed at multiple institutions requires ethics review at each institution. While local (institutional) review may be necessary in some instances, repetitive reviews may require unnecessary changes and not serve to further protect participants. Multiple ethics reviews of a single study have been shown to delay research and require, in some cases, significant resources in order to fulfill the requests of individual ethics boards. This literature review discusses the conceptual issues and outlines empirical research surrounding multisite ethics review from different jurisdictions, as well as alternative methods to streamline the ethics review process including reciprocal review, centralized review, and a proposed modification to the centralized review process.


2021 ◽  
pp. 39-59
Author(s):  
Kevin D. Haggerty

This chapter accentuates some of the reasons why crime ethnographies can face difficulties with the ethics review process, including prominent issues relating to informed consent, risk and harm, anonymity, and criminal behavior. Universities in most Western countries have established research ethics boards over the past twenty years responsible for assessing the ethical conduct of research. Qualitative research can fit poorly into the largely positivist ethics framework, resulting in an often-frustrating situation for ethnographers seeking to move ahead with their research. One paradox of this situation is that the ethics process itself seems poised to give rise to a subset of academic deviants in the form of crime ethnographers who may find that they are obliged to circumvent or disregard some formal ethical strictures in order to engage in ethnographic practices that otherwise seem uncontroversial or even innocuous.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 406-408
Author(s):  
Brigitte Lemyre ◽  
Jaya P Bodani ◽  
Stefani Doucette ◽  
Michael S Dunn ◽  
Deepak Louis ◽  
...  

Abstract To be time and resource efficient in neonatal research and to answer clinically relevant questions with validity and generalizability, large numbers of infants from multiple hospitals need to be included. Multijurisdictional research in Canada is currently fraught with research ethics review process hurdles that lead to delays, administrative costs, and possibly termination of projects. We describe our experience applying for ethics review to 13 sites in 7 provinces for a project comparing two standard of care therapies for preterm born infants with respiratory distress syndrome. We welcome the current opportunity created by the Institute of Human Development Child and Youth Health and the Institute for Genetics, to collaboratively identify practical solutions that would benefit Canadian researchers, Research Ethics Boards, and children and families.


2006 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 377-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen H. Fitzgerald ◽  
Paul A. Phillips ◽  
Elisa Yule

Bioethica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Vasilios Fanaras (Βασίλειος Φανάρας) ◽  
Vasiliki Mollaki (Βασιλική Μολλάκη)

Funding of research proposals by the European Commission (EC) requires not only scientificex cellence and innovation, but also ethical conduct of research. For this reason, the EC performs ethicsreview for all the research proposals that are going to be funded, in order to check compliance with theethics principles of research, as well as the Eu ropean and National laws, in the countries where research isconducted. The aim of the present manuscript is to raise awareness and familiarize researchers with theethics review of research proposals, as conducted in the EC, through the eyes of two ethics experts.Firstly, the stages of the ethics review process are described, which is performed with the assistanceof independent ethics experts. The criteria which are provided and monitored by the Ethics and ResearchIntegrity Sector in the EC are then pr esented in detail. Based on these criteria, the possible outcomes of anethics review are analyzed, which may include the formation of specific requirements that need to befulfilled by the researchers. Specific reference is made to the requirements that m ay result when aresearch proposal involves collection, processing and storage of personal data according to the GeneralData Protection Regulation 2016/679, because this Regulation entered into force recently in the ethicsreview.Finally, reference is m ade to the importance of ensuring integrity in research thought the ethicsreview process, and the necessary compliance with the ethics standards of EC funded research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document