Is 'inconsistency' in research ethics committee decision-making really a problem? An empirical investigation and reflection

Clinical Ethics 2 (2):92-99 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are frequently a focus of complaints from researchers, but evidence about the operation and decisions of RECs tends to be anecdotal. We conducted a systematic study to identify and compare the ethical issues raised in 54 letters to researchers about the same 18 applications submitted to three RECs over one year. The most common type of ethical trouble identified in REC letters related to informed consent, followed by scientific design and conduct, care and protection of research participants, confidentiality, recruitment and documentation. Community considerations were least frequently raised. There was evidence of variability in the ethical troubles identified and the remedies recommended. This analysis suggests that some principles may be more institutionalized than others, and offers some evidence of inconsistency between RECs. Inconsistency is often treated as evidence of incompetence and caprice, but a more sophisticated understanding of the role of RECs and their functioning is required

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 97,297

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Reassessing the Role of the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee.Merryn Ekberg - 2012 - Journal of Academic Ethics 10 (4):335-352.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
74 (#232,884)

6 months
18 (#224,798)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Martin Woods
Massey University
Clinise Jackson
Grand Canyon University