Should research ethics committees meet in public?

Abstract

Currently, research ethics committees (RECs) in the UK meet behind closed doors-their workings and most of the content of their decisions are unavailable to the general public. There is a significant tension between this current practice and a broader societal presumption of openness. As a form of public institution, the REC system exists to oversee research from the perspective of society generally. An important part of this tension turns on the kind of justification that might be offered for the REC system. In this paper I adapt Daniels and Sabin's accountability for reasonableness model for just resource allocation to the research ethics context to provide some structural legitimacy and to enable progress on the question of openness. After considering the consequences of adopting this model for open REC meetings, I then examine some reasons that might be offered against open meetings. These arguments do not overwhelm the core intuitions behind the presumption of openness but they do, I suggest, give us reason to retreat from fully public meetings. I conclude that there should be important adjustments to the system towards public accountability and that there are grounds for stopping short of fully public meetings.

Should the Decisions of Institutional Review Boards Be Consistent?

“…In light of this, two interrelated changes that might help to improve both fairness and perceptions of fairness in research oversight are for IRBs to increase the transparency of their processes and to give reasons for their decisions . Although some argue that there are good reasons (such as the protection of confidentiality and freedom of discussion) to refrain from making IRB decision‐making processes available to the public, allowing investigators to peek within the black box of IRB reasoning may also help them to better understand the ethical issues that arise in their research and how they might respond to them. Fernandez Lynch proposes several ways that IRB transparency could be increased, including releasing redacted IRB minutes, sharing information about internal processes (such as timelines and mechanisms for self‐quality improvement), or opening up IRB meetings to various stakeholders (such as investigators, the public, and participants) .…”

Lay REC members: patient or public?

“…The key role for lay REC members then becomes one of ensuring transparency and public accountability in REC decisions 27. In this capacity, the lay member acts as a general citizen—or reasonable person—who has concern for the community as a whole and its wider interests 27.…”

“…In this capacity, the lay member acts as a general citizen—or reasonable person—who has concern for the community as a whole and its wider interests 27. They are there to ensure that the REC decision making is not solely driven by the interests of professionals.…”

Ethical Review of Research on Human Subjects at Unilever: Reflections on Governance

“…The proper justification of a system of governance must be built on a primary concern with the establishment and maintenance of ethical standards even if other concerns are involved. 7 For this reason, the first of the three elements is always to be prioritized over the latter two.…”