Research ethics committees: The ineligibles

Research Ethics 11 (3):142-150 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Some anomalies in the legislation governing National Research Ethics Service Research Ethics Committee member categories are discussed. It is suggested that not only may some members be in the wrong category, but that the legislation identifies individuals who are simply ineligible for any form of REC membership.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

2016

DOI

10.1177/1747016113489944

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,475

External links

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

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Research ethics committees: The ineligibles.Stephen Humphreys - 2016 - Research Ethics:174701611246697.
Research ethics committees at work: the experience of one multi-location study.A. E. While - 1996 - Journal of Medical Ethics 22 (6):352-355.
Research ethics committees: the role of ethics in a regulatory authority.S. McGuinness - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (9):695-700.
Should local research ethics committees monitor research they have approved?E. Pickworth - 2000 - Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (5):330-333.
The Role, Remit and Function of the Research Ethics Committee — 5. Collective Decision-Making and Research Ethics Committees.Sarah Jl Edwards - 2011 - Research Ethics 7 (1):19-23.
Tis but a scratch: The human tissue act and the use of tissue for research, issues for research ethics committees.David Hunter - unknown
The value of sharing genomic findings with research ethics committees.Angeliki Kerasidou - 2017 - Research Ethics 13 (2):59-64.
European Experiences of Ethics Committees.Verena Tschudin - 2001 - Nursing Ethics 8 (2):142-151.
Ethical Review of Action Research: The Challenges for Researchers and Research Ethics Committees.Leslie Gelling & Carol Munn-Giddings - 2011 - Research Ethics 7 (3):100-106.
The Ethics Consultant and Ethics Committees, and their Acronyms: IRBs, HECs, RM, QA, UM, PROs, IPCs, and HREAPs.David Schiedermayer & John La Puma - 1993 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2 (4):469.
A Relational Ethical Dialogue With Research Ethics Committees.Philip J. Larkin, Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé & Paul Schotsmans - 2008 - Nursing Ethics 15 (2):234-242.
Science review in research ethics committees: Double jeopardy?Stephen Humphreys, Hilary Thomas & Robyn Martin - 2014 - Research Ethics 10 (4):227-237.
The reform of UK research ethics committees: throwing the baby out with the bath water?S. Kerrison - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (8):487-489.
The ethics committee as ghost author.David Shaw - 2011 - Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (12):706-706.
The Case against Ethics Review in the Social Sciences.Zachary M. Schrag - 2011 - Research Ethics 7 (4):120-131.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-12-01

Downloads
30 (#527,864)

6 months
4 (#783,550)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

A decent proposal: ethical review of clinical research.Donald Evans - 1996 - New York, N.Y.: Wiley. Edited by Martyn Evans.

Add more references