The structure of ethics review: expert ethics committees and the challenge of voluntary research euthanasia

Reviewing code consistency is important, but research ethics committees must also make a judgement on scientific justification, methodological approach and competency of the research team

“…We broadly agree with Savulescu’s2 argument that ethics committees should become more expert, but in a different way and for a different reason.…”

Reasoning “Uncharted Territory”: Notions of Expertise Within Ethics Review Panels Assessing Research Use of Social Media

“…As noted above, it is also important that RECs engage in a dialogue with SM researchers and that researchers think carefully about the ethical implications of their research before review, providing sufficient context to the committee. We also do not rule out the establishment of a super-ethics committee for SM research and/or other innovative digital research platforms (Savulescu, 2017), although the logistics of such a committee would require further reflection. Although our findings suggest that there are limitations with current institutional and professional guidelines based on traditional ethical frameworks (Emanuel et al, 2008), we do not suggest that new separate guidelines are needed for SM research, as it was not the aim of this research to identify whether more guidelines are required.…”

“…At a maximum, REC members must have contributory expertise-the "traditional way of thinking about expertise" (p. 24), acquired through firsthand experience in a field. This necessity for expertise is crucial if a REC member is to make ethical judgments on a research proposal in a particular scientific field (Savulescu, 2017). Sirotin and colleagues found that REC Chairs reviewing mental-health-related research draw on colleagues with appropriate scientific expertise for help when reviewing proposals for which they have little experience (Sirotin et al, 2010).…”

“…Others find this scenario more problematic since some research fields, which complicate traditional standards of ethical practice (Emanuel et al, 2008), raise issues for which REC members may be ill-equipped to negotiate, and their interactional expertise may no longer apply. Savulescu has called for more contributory expertise via superregional specialist ethics committees “with people with the right skills and experience to identify risks and to engage in ethical reflection and deliberation” (Savulescu, 2017, p. 2). Goodyear-Smith and colleagues propose, improving interactional expertise in other research areas.…”

'Text-work' in Research Ethics Review: The significance of documents in and beyond committee meetings

“…The impossibility of such a separation in the work of RECs is highlighted by Holm (2016) who argues that both modes (code and ethical discourse) are required in review. Codes can never be the sole route to decision-making because they require interpretation (Savulescu 2017). Most recently accounts have stressed accountability in decision-making (Sheehan et al 2018) in an argument which acknowledges difficulties with current review (here in the context of social, research) but nevertheless asserts the continuation of governance largely in its current form.…”