The role of the REC is to aim for a fair and effective trial protocol and to provide to potential trial subjects sufficient information to allow them to make a rational decision on whether to participate in it or not. The members are medical specialists and members of the public together fitted to these tasks. In his paper ‘Illegality in the research protocol: the duty of research ethics committees under the 2001 Clinical Trials Directive’ Roy-Toole has made a number of (...) suggestions on how to improve the function of the RECs, but he has not given persuasive evidence to show that the RECs themselves are the most effective bodies to implement possible legal requirements to improve medical research. (shrink)

This paper focuses on the REC and its political context to clarify the process of ethical review. The examples initially considered are taken from a Research Ethics Review editorial to develop the social explanation of the membership and function of a research ethics committee. It is suggested that the management and administration of medical matters are not always best understood solely in medical terms. The conclusion of the paper is that the larger political relationships determine the membership and function of (...) the research ethics committee. The REC is defined as the political mechanism for formally socializing medical research and its lay members as similarly socializing the REC. (shrink)

We consider a particular attempt to justify medical research and the practice of medicine as moral imperatives; in doing this we are led into a comparison of consequential and deontological justifications of intention and action. We conclude that the justification of research and medicine is consequential.

Nathan Emmerich, in a recent issue of Research Ethics Review, has suggested that the ‘professional ethicist’ should be considered an ‘expert member’ in the research ethics committee. He raised a number of interesting questions and in seeking to answer them one may come to what may be regarded as an unexpected conclusion – that there is a prior need to clearly explain the concept of ‘ethical expertise’ and the ‘ethics professional’.