Research ethics committees: the role of ethics in a regulatory authority

McGuinness, Sheelagh

doi:10.1136/jme.2007.021089

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No matter how competent its members, an REC is not always ideally positioned to evaluate the scientific merits of research projects, especially when they deviate from the paradigm (Fistein and Quilligan, 2011). It is tempting therefore to distinguish between "ethical" and "technical" issues, where the former but not the latter would be the responsibility of RECs (McGuinness, 2008). But since badly designed research is by definition unethical, this position is difficult to justify.…”

Section: Idiosyncrasymentioning

confidence: 99%

Making researchers moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research ethics, once a platform for declaring intent, discussing moral issues and providing advice and guidance to researchers, has developed over time into an extra-legal regulatory system, complete with steering documents (ethics guidelines), overseeing bodies (research ethics committees), and formal procedures (informed consent). The process of institutionalising distrust is usually motivated by reference to past atrocities committed in the name of research and the need to secure the trustworthiness of the research system. This paper examines some limitations of this approach. First, past atrocities cannot provide the necessary justification unless institutionalised distrust is a necessary or efficient means to prevent future ones; and there are several reasons to doubt this. Second, the efficacy of ethics review in safeguarding morally acceptable research depends on the moral competence and integrity of individual researchers-the very qualities that institutionalised distrust calls into question. Third, ethics guidelines cannot, as is sometimes assumed, educate or guide researchers to moral behaviour unless they already possess considerable capacity for moral judgment. Fourth, institutionalised distrust is a potential threat to the moral competence and integrity of researchers by encouraging a blinkered view of ethical issues, inducing moral heteronomy through incentives, and alienating them to research ethics. We conclude that the moral problem posed by inappropriate short-term behaviour on behalf of researchers is dwarfed by the potential long-term consequences if their moral competence is allowed to deteriorate. Measures must therefore be taken to ensure that researchers are equipped to take their individual responsibility and not obstructed from doing so.Keywords research ethics; moral responsibility; moral competence; moral integrity; researchers; trustworthiness; ethics review; ethics guidelines; institutionalised distrust; scientific misconduct Stefan Eriksson is a senior research fellow at

show abstract

Section: Idiosyncrasymentioning

confidence: 99%

Making researchers moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In many cases, requirements have become lengthier and more rigorous, increasing the time and financial costs to researchers,24 25 and creating particular problems for postgraduate candidates or researchers on fixed-term grants with yearly reporting requirements. However, evidence from the UK indicates substantial improvement over the last decade, with clear provision for the inclusion of people without capacity to self-consent in research,22 and more efficient processes for ethical approval 12…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This issue is particularly important when two or more committees are required to assess the ethical basis of a research project. Importantly, it is agreed that the approval process should not be regarded or serve as the be-all and end-all of ethical research25 All studies should be conducted with the rights and protection of the participants being foremost in the minds and intentions of researchers, and in recognition that the process of fully informed consent is an on-going facet of any study, requiring constant reiteration and affirmation 18 23…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating the maze: ethics approval pathways for intellectual disability research: Table 1

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…696–7 5. In such cases, a code might direct review boards not to take a view on certain aspects of the activities it reviews.…”

Section: Relations Between the Two Sorts Of Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On related topics, see also McGuinness5 at p. 695 and Hunter 24. Focus will tend to accrue to such questions as: Is the lawfulness of a proposed activity an ethical issue?…”

Section: Risks Of Ethics-consistency Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The job of ‘ethics committees’

Moore

Donnelly²

2015

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What should authorities establish as the job of ethics committees and review boards? Two answers are: (1) review of proposals for consistency with the duly established and applicable code and (2) review of proposals for ethical acceptability. The present paper argues that these two jobs come apart in principle and in practice. On grounds of practicality, publicity and separation of powers, it argues that the relevant authorities do better to establish code-consistency review and not ethics-consistency review. It also rebuts bad code and independence arguments for the opposite view. It then argues that authorities at present variously specify both code-consistency and ethics-consistency jobs, but most are also unclear on this issue. The paper then argues that they should reform the job of review boards and ethics committees, by clearly establishing code-consistency review and disestablishing ethicsconsistency review, and through related reform of the basic orientation, focus, name, and expertise profile of these bodies and their actions.

show abstract

Research ethics committees: the role of ethics in a regulatory authority

Cited by 17 publications

References 14 publications

Making researchers moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review

Making researchers moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review

Navigating the maze: ethics approval pathways for intellectual disability research: Table 1

The job of ‘ethics committees’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About