Background The review of human participant research by Research Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards is a complex multi-faceted process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm. However, this does not give RECs/ IRBs permission to be inconsistent in their specific requirements to researchers or in their final opinions. In England the Health Research Authority coordinates 67 committees, and has adopted a consistency improvement plan including a process called “Shared Ethical Debate” where multiple committees (...) review the same project. Committee reviews are compared for consistency by analysing the resulting minutes. Methods We present a description of the ShED process. We report an analysis of minutes created by research ethics committees participating in two ShED exercises, and compare them to minutes produced in a published “mystery shopper” exercise. We propose a consistency score by defining top themes for each exercise, and calculating the ratio between top themes and total themes identified by each committee for each ShED exercise. Results Our analysis highlights qualitative differences between the ShED 19, ShED 20 and “mystery shopper” exercises. The quantitative measure of consistency showed only one committee across the three exercises with more than half its total themes as top themes. The average consistency scores for the three exercises were 0.23, 0.35 and 0.32. There is a statistically significant difference between the ShED 19 exercise, and the ShED 20 and mystery shopper exercises. Conclusions ShED exercises are effective in identifying inconsistency between ethics committees and we describe a scoring method that could be used to quantify this. However, whilst a level of inconsistency is probably inevitable in research ethics committee reviews, studies must move beyond the ShED methodology to understand why inconsistency occurs, and what an acceptable level of inconsistency might be. (shrink)

The review of human participant research by Research Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards is a complex multi-faceted process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm. However, this does not give RECs/ IRBs permission to be inconsistent in their specific requirements to researchers or in their final opinions. In England the Health Research Authority coordinates 67 committees, and has adopted a consistency improvement plan including a process called “Shared Ethical Debate” where multiple committees (...) class='Hi'>review the same project. Committee reviews are compared for consistency by analysing the resulting minutes. We present a description of the ShED process. We report an analysis of minutes created by research ethics committees participating in two ShED exercises, and compare them to minutes produced in a published “mystery shopper” exercise. We propose a consistency score by defining top themes for each exercise, and calculating the ratio between top themes and total themes identified by each committee for each ShED exercise. Our analysis highlights qualitative differences between the ShED 19, ShED 20 and “mystery shopper” exercises. The quantitative measure of consistency showed only one committee across the three exercises with more than half its total themes as top themes. The average consistency scores for the three exercises were 0.23, 0.35 and 0.32. There is a statistically significant difference between the ShED 19 exercise, and the ShED 20 and mystery shopper exercises. ShED exercises are effective in identifying inconsistency between ethics committees and we describe a scoring method that could be used to quantify this. However, whilst a level of inconsistency is probably inevitable in research ethics committee reviews, studies must move beyond the ShED methodology to understand why inconsistency occurs, and what an acceptable level of inconsistency might be. (shrink)

Research question and aimClinical Ethics Committees (CECs) aim to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organizations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice. In 2020,...

Health research initiatives worldwide are growing in scope and complexity, particularly as they move into the developing world. Expanding health research activity in low- and middle-income countries has resulted in a commensurate rise in the need for sound ethical review structures and functions in the form of Research Ethics Committees. The urgent need for continued capacity development in Africa has necessitated research initiatives to identify existing capacity. This discussion paper describes the mapping of RECs (...) in Africa through MARC project, second phase and discusses the findings. MARC provides a platform and tool on COHRED's Health Research HRWeb, which can be used by RECs and key stakeholders in health research in Africa to identify capacity, constraints and development needs. (shrink)

This paper describes the UK Research Ethics Committee’s (REC) preparations and review of the global first SARS-CoV-2 human infection challenge studies. To frame our review, we used the WHO guidance and our UK Health Research Authority ethical review framework. The WHO criteria covered most issues we were concerned about, but we would recommend one further criterion directing RECs to consider alternative research designs. Could research questions be equally well answered by less (...) intrusive studies? The committee met virtually, ensuring broad representation across the UK nations and also ensuring applicants could attend easily. We worked in collaboration with the applicants but while we recognise that such proximity might raise the accusation of ‘collusion’, we made every effort to maintain ‘moral distance’ and all decisions were made by the committee alone. Prior existing processes and policy facilitated training and review but even with this preparation, review took time and this could have hindered a rapid response to the emergency. Review for the various follow-on studies will now be speedier and once the pandemic has subsided, our group could be reconvened in future emergencies. In conclusion, we have tried to make decisions in good faith. We know there is controversy and disagreement and reasonable people may feel we have made the wrong decision. A more detailed analysis, built on the WHO guidance, is provided in online supplemental material. (shrink)

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) play a critical gatekeeping role in clinical trials. This role is meant to ensure that only those trials that meet certain ethical thresholds proceed through their gate. Two of these thresholds are that the potential benefits of trials are reasonable in relation to risks and that trials are capable of producing a requisite amount of social value. While one ought not expect perfect execution by RECs of their gatekeeping role, one should expect routine success (...) in it. This article reviews a range of evidence showing that substantial numbers of ethically tainted trials are receiving REC approvals. Many of the trials are early phase trials that evidence shows have benefits that may not be reasonable compared with their risks and many others are later trials that evidence shows may lack sufficient social value. The evidence pertains to such matters as methodologically inadequate preclinical studies incapable of supporting the inferences that REC members must make about the prospects for potential benefit needed to offset the risks in early phase trials and sponsorship bias that can cause improperly designed, conducted, analysed and reported later phase trials. The analysis of the evidence makes clear that REC practices need to be strengthened if they are to adequately fulfil their gatekeeping role. The article also explores options that RECs could use in order to improve their gatekeeping function. (shrink)

This project is based on the unique ‘Shared ethical debate’ between NHS RECs in the UK in which one research application is reviewed by several research ethics committees. This programme is now in its 6th cycle. In the fifth cycle a prison- based research project was reviewed by each of three NHS RECs that are ‘ flagged’ for such research and their debate and discussions were observed directly by one researcher who recorded the committee (...) processes and the issues raised in committee. Subsequently a focus group of REC members from all three committees was constituted to consider the ethical importance of these issues. The three RECs were consistent in both process and identifying ethical issues. The focus group formulated a basic framework that will further contribute to ensuring a consistent and balanced approach to ethical review within this area of research. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Many people argue that disagreements and inconsistencies between Research Ethics Committees are morally problematic and there has been much effort to ‘harmonise’ their judgements. Some inconsistencies are bad because they are due to irrationality, or carelessness, or the operation of conflicting interests, and so should be reduced or removed. Other inconsistencies, we argue, are not bad and should be left or even encouraged. In this paper we examine three arguments to reject the view that we should strive (...) for complete consistency between committees. The first argument is that differences in judgement are not necessarily incompatible with ideas of justice for patients who are potential participants of research reviewed by different committees. We call this ‘the justice argument.’ The second argument is that such committees do not have access to a single moral truth, to which their judgement is supposed to correspond. We call this the ‘moral pluralism argument.’ The third argument is that the process of ethics committee review is also morally relevant and not solely the outcome. We call this the ‘due process argument.’ While we fall short of establishing exactly how much variation and on what substantive issues would be ethically permissible, we show that it is largely inevitable and that a certain amount of variation could be seen as a desirable part of the institution of medical research. (shrink)

The same research proposal was submitted to 24 district health authority (DHA) research ethics committees in different parts of the country. The objective was to obtain permission for a multi-centre research project. The study of neonatal care in different types of unit (regional, subregional and district), required that four health authorities were approached in each of six widely separated health regions in England. Data were collected and compared concerning aspects of processing, including application forms, information required, (...) timing and decision-making. The key finding was that ethics committees received and processed the applications variably, reflecting individual factors and local problems. To improve consensus and facilitate multicentre studies, standard forms and instructions are suggested and the establishment of a national committee or advisory group advocated. (shrink)

Research ethics committees (RECs) have a crucial role in protecting children in research. However, studies on REC members’ perspectives on paediatric research are scarce. We conducted a qualitative study to explore Swedish scientific REC members’ perspectives on ethical aspects in applications involving children with severe health conditions. The REC members considered promoting participation, protecting children and regulatory adherence to be central aspects. The results underscored the importance of not neglecting ill children’s rights to adapted information and (...) participation. REC members supported a contextual and holistic approach to vulnerability and risk, which considers the child’s and parents’ psychological wellbeing and the child’s integrity, both short and long term. The ethical complexity of paediatric research requires continuous ethical competence development within RECs. (shrink)

This research focuses on how research ethics committee and integrity board members discuss and decide on solutions to case scenarios that involve a dimension of research ethics or integrity in collaborative settings. The cases involved issues around authorship, conflict of interest, disregard of good scientific practice and ethics review, and research with vulnerable populations (children and neonates). The cases were set in a university, a hospital, or a research institute. In (...) the research, we used a deductive qualitative approach with thematic analysis. Twenty-seven research ethics committee and research integrity board members from 16 European countries and one country outside Europe participated. Participants represented natural and life sciences, social sciences, and humanities. They worked on cases involving ethical/integrity issues in six different constellations. Results show that experts apply key elements of ethical decision making, namely identification of ethical issues, stakeholders, guidelines, solutions, and own positionality, in dealing collaboratively with ethics/ integrity problems, and the nature of the application depends on the complexity of the case. Understanding how individuals knowledgeable in research ethics and integrity, in this case, individuals serving on research ethics committees and integrity boards, approach ethical/ moral issues can help to identify strategies that may be useful in the development of research ethics and integrity training for junior researchers who may benefit from learning professional strategies. (shrink)

Background Despite the growth of biomedical research in South Africa, there are few insights into the operation of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) in this setting. We investigated the composition, operations and training needs of health RECs in South Africa against the backdrop of national and international guidelines. Methods The 12 major health RECs in South Africa were surveyed using semi-structured questionnaires that investigated the composition and functions of each REC as well as the operational issues facing committees. (...) Results Health RECs in SA have an average of 16 members and REC members are predominantly male and white. Overall, there was a large discrepancy in findings between under-resourced RECs and well resourced RECs. The majority of members (56%) are scientists or clinicians who are typically affiliated to the same institution as the health REC. Community representatives account for only 8% of membership. Training needs for health REC members varied widely. Conclusion Most major health RECs in South Africa are well organized given the resource constraints that exist in relation to research ethics in developing countries. However, the gender, racial and occupational diversity of most of these RECs is suboptimal, and most RECs are not constituted in accordance with South African guidelines. Variability in the operations and training needs of RECs is a reflection of apartheid-entrenched influences in tertiary education in SA. While legislation now exists to enforce standardization of research ethics review systems, no provision has been made for resources or capacity development, especially to support historically-disadvantaged institutions. Perpetuation of this legacy of apartheid represents a violation of the principles of justice and equity. (shrink)

This study aims to characterise Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members’ perceptions on five main themes associated with ethics reviews, namely, the nature of research, ethical/moral issues, assent, participants’ risk and HREC prerogatives issues. Three hundred and sixteen HREC members from over 200 HRECs throughout Australia responded to an online questionnaire survey. The results show that in general, HREC members’ beliefs are reasoned and align with sound principles of ethical reviews. There seems to be a (...) disposition for living up to ethical/moral values, avoiding the issue of consent waivers and respecting participants’ welfare, as well as a sense of ambiguity about HREC prerogatives. Problematic areas were a tendency towards over-valuing quantitative research methods for their perceived validity and a neutral view on issuing consent waivers to participants with intellectual disability and, finally, the belief that research that limits disclosure, plans deception or actively conceals is morally unjustifiable. Implications for professional development and policy-making are discussed. (shrink)

We analysed research ethics committee (REC) letters. We found that RECs frequently identify process errors in applications from researchers that are not deemed “favourable” at first review. Errors include procedural violations (identified in 74% of all applications), missing information (68%), slip-ups (44%) and discrepancies (25%). Important questions arise about why the level of error identified by RECs is so high, and about how errors of different types should be handled.

Human subjects research has increased in Myanmar since 2010 and, accordingly, the establishment of research ethics committees has increased review of these research studies. However, characteristics that reflect the operations of RECs in Myanmar have not been assessed. To assess the structures and processes of RECs at medical institutions in Myanmar, we used a self-assessment tool for RECs operating in low- and middle-income countries. This tool consists of the following ten domains: organizational aspects, membership and (...) ethics training, submission arrangements and materials, meeting minutes, policies referring to review procedures, review of specific protocol and informed consent items, communication a decision, continuing review, REC resources and institutional commitment. We distributed this self-administered questionnaire to RECs from 15 medical institutions in Myanmar and one representative from each REC completed this questionnaire and returned it anonymously. We used descriptive, bivariate and multivariate statistics to analyse the data. Out of a maximum 200 points, the total mean score for Myanmar medical institutions was 112.6 ± 12.77, which is lower compared with the aggregate mean score of 137.4 ± 35.8 obtained from RECs in other countries. Domains in which the average percentage score was less than 60% included organizational commitment, membership and ethics training, continuing review and REC resources. Many RECs have a diverse membership and appropriate gender balance but lacked essential policies. The results show that for Myanmar RECs, there is significant room for improvement in their “structures and processes” as well as the extent of institutional commitment. The self-assessment tool proved to be a valuable method to assess the quality of RECs. (shrink)

In the past decade, there has been an increase in genomic research and biobanking activities in Africa. Research initiatives such as the Human Heredity and Health in Africa Consortium are contributing to the development of scientific capacity and infrastructure to support these studies on the continent. Despite this growth, genomic research and biobanking have raised important ethical challenges for key research stakeholders, including members of research ethics committees. One of these is the limited ethical (...) and regulatory frameworks to guide the review and conduct of genomic studies, particularly in Africa. This paper is a reflection on a series of consultative activities with research ethics committees in Africa which informed the development of an ethics and governance framework for best practices in genomic research and biobanking in Africa. The paper highlights the engagement process and the lessoned learned. (shrink)

This paper is an examination of how research ethics committees have evolved from being advisory committees to more formal regulatory authorities. It is argued that the role of ethics committees should be broader than simple ethical review. Inconsistency in outcome should not be taken to signal failure. Procedural fairness is of the utmost importance. Nor should ethics committees be seen to diminish the ethical responsibilities of researchers themselves.

Guidelines for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees exist at national and international levels. These guidelines are based on ethical principles and establish an internationally acceptable standard for the review and conduct of medical research. Having attained a multinational consensus about what these fundamental guidelines should be, IRBs are left to interpret the guidelines and devise their own means of implementing them. Individual and community values bear on the interpretation of the guidelines so (...) different IRBs attain different levels of effectiveness. In the Caribbean and Pan American regions there are few IRBs. Obstacles to the establishment and function of IRBs are exacerbated in developing regions like these by differences in language, literacy, and local value systems; education, administrative expertise, facilities, and access to information are also limited. A regional IRB network might facilitate more uniform ethical review in developing countries, and simplify IRB procedures. (shrink)

Research ethics committees ‘ members’ perceptions of their role in regard to the science of research proposals are discussed. Our study, which involved the interviewing of 20 participants from amongst the UK’s independent ethics committees, revealed that the members consider that it is the role of the REC to examine and approve the scientific adequacy of the research – and this notwithstanding the fact that a more competent body will already have done this and even (...) when that other body has the legal responsibility for this function. The problematic nature of this situation, tantamount to double jeopardy, is considered: it can delay research and so add to costs whilst offering no countervailing benefits, or the double jeopardy may be just the cost society imposes, through its RECs, on researchers as the price for research on human subjects. (shrink)

OBJECTIVES: To report the outcome of applications to 43 research ethics committees. SETTING: Four regional health authorities in England. FINDINGS: The research ethics committees varied considerably in their practices. The time lapse until notification of the outcome of the approval ranged from just under one week to 23 weeks with a mean of 8.6 weeks. Four research ethics committees failed to notify the research team of an outcome of their request for approval. CONCLUSION: (...) A national research ethics committee is needed to review national and multi-location research studies in the light of the fragmented and variable practice of local research ethics committees. (shrink)

Human research ethics has developed in both theory and practice mostly from experiences in medical research. Human participants, however, are used in a much broader range of research than ethics committees oversee, including both basic and applied research at technical universities. Although mandated in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, non-medical research involving humans need not receive ethics review in much of Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Our (...) survey of the top 50 technical universities in the world shows that, where not specifically mandated by law, most technical universities do not employ ethics committees to review human studies. As the domains of basic and applied sciences expand, ethics committees are increasingly needed to guide and oversee all such research regardless of legal requirements. We offer as examples, from our experience as an ethics committee in a major European technical university, ways in which such a committee provides needed services and can help ensure more ethical studies involving humans outside the standard medical context. We provide some arguments for creating such committees, and in our supplemental article, we provide specific examples of cases and concerns that may confront technical, engineering, and design research, as well as outline the general framework we have used in creating our committee. (shrink)

The research ethics committee is a key element of university administration and has gained increasing importance as a review mechanism for those institutions that wish to conduct responsible...

Submission of study protocols to research ethics committees constitutes one of the earliest stages at which planned trials are documented in detail. Previous studies have investigated the amendments requested from researchers by RECs, but the type of issues raised during REC review have not been compared by sponsor type. The objective of this study was to identify recurring shortcomings in protocols of drug trials based on REC comments and to assess whether these were more common among industry-sponsored (...) or non-industry trials. (shrink)

Key historical landmark research malpractice scandals that shocked the international community were the origin of the institution of ethics review prior to carrying out research involving humans. Nonetheless, it is plausible that unethical research is ongoing or may have been conducted in recent times that has escaped public notice, especially in the vulnerable low- and middle-income country contexts. The basic constitution of these committees at some point has not been clearly defined, with most scientists declaring (...) political maneuvers at times. These committees today are characterized by bureaucratic bottlenecks, financial interests, inadequate training in research ethics, and lack of control and coordination of their functions. Compulsory and adequate research ethics training for researchers and ethical committee members could guarantee trust, and appreciation of the utmost importance... (shrink)

This article is a response to the letter from the Department of Health that was published in the previous edition of the Research Ethics Review upon the matter of the legal duty of the research ethics committees. It also deals briefly with the article published in the current edition of Research Ethics Review by Colin Parker on what appears to be the same topic.

BackgroundCountries are increasingly devoting significant resources to creating or strengthening research ethics committees, but there has been insufficient attention to assessing whether these committees are actually improving the protection of human research participants.DiscussionResearch ethics committees face numerous obstacles to achieving their goal of improving research participant protection. These include the inherently amorphous nature of ethics review, the tendency of regulatory systems to encourage a focus on form over substance, financial and resource constraints, and (...) conflicts of interest. Auditing and accreditation programs can improve the quality of ethics review by encouraging the development of standardized policies and procedures, promoting a common base of knowledge, and enhancing the status of research ethics committees within their own institutions. However, these mechanisms focus largely on questions of structure and process and are therefore incapable of answering many critical questions about ethics committees' actual impact on research practices.The first step in determining whether research ethics committees are achieving their intended function is to identify what prospective research participants and their communities hope to get out of the ethics review process. Answers to this question can help guide the development of effective outcomes assessment measures. It is also important to determine whether research ethics committees' guidance to investigators is actually being followed. Finally, the information developed through outcomes assessment must be disseminated to key decision-makers and incorporated into practice. This article offers concrete suggestions for achieving these goals.ConclusionOutcomes assessment of research ethics committees should address the following questions: First, does research ethics committee review improve participants' understanding of the risks and potential benefits of studies? Second, does the process affect prospective participants' decisions about whether to participate in research? Third, does it change participants' subjective experiences in studies or their attitudes about research? Fourth, does it reduce the riskiness of research? Fifth, does it result in more research responsive to the local community's self-identified needs? Sixth, is research ethics committees' guidance to researchers actually being followed? (shrink)

Two decades have passed since the first attempts were made to establish systematic ethical review of human research in the Baltic States. Legally and institutionally much has changed. In this paper we provide an historical and structural overview of ethical review of human research and identify some problems related to the role of ethical review in establishing quality research environment in these countries. Problems connected to (a) public availability of information, (b) management of conflicts (...) of interest, (c) REC composition and motivation of REC members, and (d) differing levels of stringency of ethical review for different types of studies, are identified. Recommendations are made to strengthen cooperation among the Baltic RECs. (shrink)

This paper presents a review, conducted by the ethics working party of the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice, of the structures and functions of research ethics committees across the member states of the EU. The findings demonstrate widespread differences, and further working groups have been established to develop thinking across Europe, in respect of the training of REC members, ethics committee quality assurance and the involvement of vulnerable subjects in research. In practical (...) terms the differences do not matter, but they should be recognized. The review itself is considered a dynamic document and will be updated every six months. (shrink)

As society becomes more aware of the rights of individuals, ethical issues become of increasing importance. Many research funders, including the research councils, increasingly emphasise research governance and ethical review in their consideration of submitted proposals. Little is known, however, about what universities do over ethical scrutiny and in order to find out the authors undertook a national study of all universities in the United Kingdom. The focus of the study was on human volunteers for (...) class='Hi'>research outside the remit of the National Health Service. The key questions being: to what extent do universities undertake ethical scrutiny of research and, if so, how? The broad conclusion is that when this survey was carried out in the autumn of 2003, the majority of universities were aware of the need for the ethical scrutiny of research on human subjects although in many of those universities the scrutiny system was being developed at the time of completion of the questionnaire. In some cases practice appeared to lag behind awareness and whilst there were some very good examples there were also some which were below an ‘acceptable’ standard. Recommendations are made concerning structures, coverage and membership for systems of ethical scrutiny within the university sector. (shrink)

Two decades have passed since the first attempts were made to establish systematic ethical review of human research in the Baltic States. Legally and institutionally much has changed. In this paper we provide an historical and structural overview of ethical review of human research and identify some problems related to the role of ethical review in establishing quality research environment in these countries. Problems connected to (a) public availability of information, (b) management of conflicts (...) of interest, (c) REC composition and motivation of REC members, and (d) differing levels of stringency of ethical review for different types of studies, are identified. Recommendations are made to strengthen cooperation among the Baltic RECs. (shrink)

Ethical conduct is a maxim in scholarly research as well as scholarly endeavour generally. In the case of research involving humans, few if any question the necessity for ethics approval of procedures by ethics boards or committees. However, concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of ethics approval processes for social science research arguing that the orientation of ethics boards and committees to biomedical and experimental scientific research, institutional risk aversion, and other (...) factors lead to over-protection of research participants and overly restrictive processes that delay and sometimes prevent important social science research. This is particularly significant when social science research is required to respond to social, environmental, or health emergencies and in contract research projects for the reasons explained. This analysis of an ethics approval case study adds to increasing concerns that ethics approval processes can have perverse effects in the social sciences. While a single case study does not provide generalizable findings, in-depth analysis of a significant case can identify issues that need to be further explored. Recommendations offer pathways for facilitating social science research including in emergency situations in which timeliness is important and in collaborative approaches such as participatory action research, while maintaining high ethical standards. (shrink)

This is the first in a series of five papers on the role, remit and function of research ethics committees which are intended to provide for REC members a broad understanding of the most important issues in research ethics and governance. The first considers the rationale for having ethics review by committee at all; seeking to explain why ethics committees, as we currently have them, are so important to the wider system of (...) governing research. (shrink)

OBJECTIVES: To review the characteristics and performance of research ethics committees in Spain in the evaluation of multicentre clinical trial drug protocols. DESIGN: A prospective study of 100 applications. SETTING: Forty-one committees reviewing clinical trial protocols, involving 50 hospitals in 25 cities. MAIN MEASURES: Protocol-related features, characteristics of research ethics committees and evaluation dynamics. RESULTS: The 100 applications involved 15 protocols (of which 12 were multinational) with 12 drugs. Committees met monthly (except one). They had (...) a mean number of 12 members, requested a mean of six complete dossiers and nine additional copies of the protocol with a mean deadline of 14 days before the meeting. All applications were approved except three (two of the three were open-label long-term safety trials rejected by the same committee), which were approved by the other committees involved. The mean time from submission to approval was 64 days. The mean time from submission to arrival of the approval document at our offices was 85 days. Twenty-five committees raised queries for 38 of the 97 finally approved applications. Impact of evaluation fee, number of members, queries raised and experience of committees on timings were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Obtaining ethical approval is time-consuming. There is much diversity in the research ethics committees' performance. A remarkable delay (> 20 days) exists between the decision and the arrival of the written approval, suggesting administrative or organisational problems. (shrink)

ABSTRACTGiven the ethical controversies concerning HIV vaccine trials , we aimed to understand through an exploratory study how members of institutional review boards in the United States and research ethics committees in South Africa view issues concerning the process and content of reviews of these studies. We mailed packets of 20 questionnaires to 12 US IRB chairs and administrators and seven REC chairs to distribute to their members. We received 113 questionnaires . In both countries, members tended (...) to be white males with advanced academic degrees. Compared to the US, SA members called for ‘major changes’ in HVT protocols more frequently , and were less likely to think that HVT participants understood risks and benefits or informed consent forms . In both countries, members were divided on several critical issues , but agreed that they needed more training. Of the SA respondents, 40% reported that they were ‘self‐taught’ in ethics. This study, the first we know of to offer quantitative data comparing US vs. non‐US IRBs/RECs, thus suggests key similarities and differences , along with needs for education. These initial exploratory data in this area have important implications for IRBs, RECs, policy‐makers and scholars concerning future practice, training, policy, and investigations in research ethics, and prevention and treatment of HIV and other diseases in the developing world and elsewhere. (shrink)

Members of research ethics committees (RECs) face a number of ethical challenges when reviewing genomic research. These include issues regarding the content and type of consent, the return of individual research results, mechanisms of sharing specimens and health data, and appropriate community engagement efforts. This article presents the findings from a survey that sought to investigate the opinions and attitudes of REC members from four Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa (Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, (...) and Jordan) toward these ethical issues. Our findings suggest that efforts are required to better familiarize REC members with the requirements for ethical biobank research. Additionally, we recommend that further research is undertaken with REC members regarding the main items that should be present in the Material Transfer Agreements /Data Transfer Agreements in their corresponding countries and the type of consent that should be used in genomic research. (shrink)

Research ethics committees (RECs) have played a crucial role in expediting the review of research protocols amidst the COVID‐19 pandemic. To improve their performance and identify areas of enhancement, a multicentric study was conducted in India by the Forum for Ethical Review Committees in the Asian and Western Pacific Region (FERCAP). The study aimed to evaluate the preparedness of Indian RECs during the COVID‐19 outbreak while conducting protocol reviews and comprehend the challenges they encountered. After (...) obtaining ethics committee approval, a cross‐sectional observational study was conducted using two validated questionnaires, one for REC member secretaries/chairpersons and another for REC members. The questionnaires consisted of 13 multiple‐choice questions, 10 yes or no questions, and 2 open‐ended questions each. The study was distributed to multiple RECs. A total of 109/200 participants, including 13 REC member secretaries, 12 chairpersons and 84 REC members from a total of 34 REC's, consented to participate in the study. During the COVID‐19 pandemic, 23/25 (92%) of the RECs conducted online meetings. The most common challenges faced by RECs included risk‐benefit analysis (12/25 RECs), review of informed consent (12/25 RECs), and protocols involving vulnerable populations (10/25 RECs). 65% of the REC members reported the need for ethics review training, and 66/84 REC members agreed or strongly agreed that RECs require training in COVID‐19 protocol review. Additionally, 62/84 REC members agreed or strongly agreed that central/joint RECs should review multicenter COVID‐19 protocols. RECs in India encountered difficulties while reviewing risk‐benefit analyses, informed consent documents (ICDs), and COVID‐19 protocols and they suggested providing training on these topics. (shrink)

The function of local research ethics committees is to consider the ethics of research proposals using human participants. After approval has been given, there is no comprehensive system in place to monitor research and ensure that recommendations are carried out. Some suggest that research ethics committees are ideally placed to fulfil this function by carrying out random monitoring of research they have reviewed. The health service guideline creating local research ethics (...) committees is under review.1 This paper suggests that increasing the monitoring role of ethics committees in the present climate would be inappropriate. This is due to the large workload of the committees, their voluntary nature and the change a monitoring role might cause to the relationship between researcher and ethics committee, which might herald an increasing recourse to judicial review. A radical overhaul of the system would be necessary in order for ethics committees adequately to fulfil a monitoring function. (shrink)

This paper examines the UK’s response to a recent European Clinical Trials Directive, namely the Department of Health, Central Office for Research Ethics Committee guidance, Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees. The revisions have been long awaited by researchers and research ethics committee members alike. They substantially reform the ethical review system in the UK. We examine the new arrangements and argue that though they go a long way toward addressing (...) the uncertainty surrounding ethics committee function, the system favours the facilitation of research over the protection of the dignity and welfare of research participants. (shrink)

The informed-consent process should be one of meaningful information exchange between researchers and study participants. One of the responsibilities of research ethics committees is to oversee appropriate informed consent. The committee must consider various matters before deciding whether the process is appropriate, including the adequacy and completeness of the written information provided to study participants, and the process of obtaining informed consent. This study aimed to identify, quantitatively and qualitatively, consent-related issues in different types of malaria proposals (...) submitted to the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Ethics Committee. This study reviewed proposal documentation submitted to two panels of the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, from 2011 to 2015. The documentation included proposals, notifications to researchers of review outcomes and ethical issues of concern to committee members. Each element of the informed-consent process was identified and analyzed by study classification, design, and specimen use, including whether the study involved a vulnerable population. Summative content analysis was used to analyze patterns of common issues raised in reviews. Of the 112 proposals reviewed, 63 required an informed consent process. All researchers proposed communicating with their study participants; however, about two-thirds needed to improve their explanations of study procedures to participants. About 40% of the proposals attracted comments on informed-consent process elements--risk and discomfort, vulnerable status, and compensation. Studies that planned to collect or use new/linked specimens raised more issues around informed consent than studies using linked data/records. Studies that involved vulnerable populations raised more issues than those that did not. The committee usually asked researchers to clarify, elaborate, revise, or paraphrase the consent process elements that were considered to involve inadequate information exchange between researcher and study participant. This study aimed to describe lessons for malaria researchers about common informed-consent process issues in different types of malaria proposals. The information and analysis of informed-consent elements should assist the preparation of malaria-research proposals. (shrink)

Background. Ethics are rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or members of a profession. Medical research must be regulated to ensure that fundamental human rights are not breached in the quest for knowledge. Nigeria had no laws or specific guidelines to regulate health research until 2007, when a national regulatory body, the National Health Research Ethics Committee, was established. Its function is to ensure ethical conduct in research and to accredit (...) institutional and state health research ethics committees.Objective. To document the current role of HRECs in the ethical practice of health research in Nigeria, 4 years after the establishment of the NHREC.Methods. Functioning of the HRECs was evaluated via interviews of 14 members of state and institutional HRECs chosen from selected geopolitical zones of the country.Results. The HRECs surveyed had between nine and 15 members, with more males than females. Review meetings were held only occasionally owing to the competing interests of members, who receive no incentives for participation, and poor funding. Scientific and ethical reviews are conducted together by the same committee, but few members of the HRECs are trained in research ethics. Monitoring of research after approval is poor.Conclusion. Nigeria now has about 30 institutional HRECs, but their functioning is hampered by a shortage of both money and qualified individuals to serve on them. (shrink)

The authors report the first Italian experience of a research ethics committee (REC) audit focused on the evaluation of the REC’s compliance with standard operating procedures, requirements in insurance coverage, informed consent, protection of privacy and confidentiality, predictable risks/harms, selection of subjects, withdrawal criteria and other issues, such as advertisement details and justification of placebo. The internal audit was conducted over a two-year period (March 2009–February 2011) divided into quarters to better value the influence of the new (...) insurance coverage regulation that came into effect in March 2010 (Ministerial Decree of 14 July, 2009) and expand the requirements to safeguard participants in clinical drug trials including other critical items as information and consent and the risks to benefits ratio. Out of a total of 639 REC’s opinions and research studies, 316 were reviewed. Regarding the insurance policy requirements, Auditor/REC non-compliance occurred only in one case. The highest number of Auditor/REC non-compliance was in regard to information and consent, which should have incurred a suspended decision rather than a favorable opinion. This internal audit shows the importance and the difficulty of the review process. For this reason, specific courses for members of the research ethics committee and for those who aspire to become auditors will be provided. There may also be efforts to improve the standard operating procedures already in place. (shrink)

We have followed with interest the commentaries arising from Moore and Donnellys1 argument that authorities in charge of research ethics committees should focus primarily on establishing code-consistent reviews.1 We broadly agree with Savulescu’s2 argument that ethics committees should become more expert, but in a different way and for a different reason. We have recently been working with the UK Health Research Authority analysing the outcomes of their ‘Shared Ethical Debate’ exercises.3 Each ShED exercise involves the circulation (...) of a single research project to a number of RECs. The resulting minutes from each REC are compared along with the final decisions made by each REC on the project under consideration. This process was originally an administrative exercise designed to promote greater consistency among the 60 or so ethics committees that were brought under the HRA ) umbrella within the UK National Health Service. Over 20 ShEDs have been run, and although the process has significant weaknesses and has not always been run consistently, the results of the exercises are fascinating. Broadly speaking, NHS RECs have been getting more consistent over time in terms of their decision-making, but the reasons for the final decisions as described in the committee minutes continue to vary widely. Qualitative research now needs to be done to understand why different committees can have such different discussions in relation to exactly the same research project and yet come to essentially the same conclusion. As part of our analysis of the ShED data, we looked at …. (shrink)

Criticism of ethical review of research continues and research ethics committees (RECs) need to demonstrate that they are “fit for purpose” by meeting acknowledged standards of process, debate and outcome. This paper reports a workshop in Warsaw in April 2008, organised by the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice, on the problems of setting standards for RECs in the European Union. Representatives from 27 countries were invited; 16 were represented. Problems identified were the limited and variable (...) resources, difficulties of setting standards for ethical debate and its outcomes and that REC members, as volunteers, may resent the imposition of standards. Other ways to set standards were discussed, including analysis of current multicentre review, collecting REC member reports for review, learning from appeals and feedback from applicants, and use of other regional and national meetings. The place of a central, national board or ethics committee was debated as was the need for collaborating with partners in other fields. (shrink)

This is the second in a series of five papers on the role, remit and function of research ethics committees which are intended to provide for REC members a broad understanding of the most important issues in research ethics and governance. This paper examines the role of ethics committees in assessing the science of the research it reviews. While ethics committees are not specifically constituted to review the science of a project, they (...) must nevertheless assess the social benefits of research and, in this context, have an important role in checking that the science has been properly peer-reviewed. (shrink)

Objectives: To review the performance of research ethics committees in Spain in assessing multicentre clinical trial drug protocols, and to evaluate if they would comply with the requirements of the new EU Directive to be implemented by May 2004.Design and setting: Prospective study of applications of MCT submitted to RECs.Main measurements: Protocol related features and evaluation process dynamics.Results: 187 applications to be performed in 114 centres, were reviewed by 62 RECs. RECs had a median number of 14 (...) members, of which three were lay members. All applications were approved except four which were however approved by the other RECs involved. The median times from submission to approval and from submission to reception at the sponsor’s offices were 48 and 62 days, respectively. In 55% of all applications approved, 41 RECs raised 307 queries, 40% of these were protocol related issues, and 38% related to the patients’ information sheets. RECs charging an evaluation fee in advance and applications with no queries raised were statistically significantly associated with shorter evaluation times. However, there is a gap of at least 1.5 weeks between the date of the meeting and the reception of the approval letter in the sponsor’s office.Conclusions: Evaluating MCT protocols by RECs is a time consuming process. Needing 1.5 weeks for communicating the decision taken by RECs to the sponsor suggests serious administrative shortcomings within most RECs. By significantly reducing the time for communication of their decisions, the majority of RECs would comply with the Directive requirement of a maximum 60 day period for the assessment of MCT. (shrink)

BACKGROUND: There is relatively little research concerning the processes whereby Local Research Ethics Committees discharge their responsibilities towards society, potential participants and investigators. OBJECTIVES: To examine the criteria used by LRECs in arriving at their decisions concerning approval of research protocols through an analysis of letters sent to investigators. DESIGN: Four LRECs each provided copies of 50 letters sent to investigators after their submitted proposals had been considered by the committees. These letters were subjected to a (...) content analysis, in which specific comments and requests for additional information and changes in the protocols were recorded and compared. FINDINGS: Overall 24% of proposals were approved without request for changes or clarifications, but this varied by committee: one committee approved only 6% of proposals without change or clarification while the others ranged from 26% to 32%. The content analyses of responses indicated that they could be placed into four categories: (i) further information for the committee to aid in their deliberations; (ii) requests for changes to the design or justification for the design used; (iii) changes to the information sheets provided to potential participants; and (iv) changes to consent procedures. Of these, alterations to information sheets were the most common type of request. These four types of response could be seen as safeguarding the wellbeing of potential participants (the principle of non-maleficence), of promoting the scientific validity of the research (the principle of beneficence), and of enhancing the rights of potential participants (the principle of autonomy). CONCLUSIONS: The committees were consistent in the types of requests they made of investigators, which can be seen as attempts to protect participants' rights and ensure the scientific validity of studies. Without an analysis of the proposals sent to the committees, however, it is difficult to account for the variation in the requirements set by the committees before approval was given. (shrink)

Action research has repeatedly demonstrated how it can facilitate problem solving and change in many settings through a process of collaboration which is driven by the community at the heart of the research. The ethical review of action research can be challenging for action researchers and research ethics committees. This paper explores how seven ethical principles can be used by action researchers and research ethics committees as the basis for ethical review. (...) This paper concludes by offering some suggestions for a way forward for both action researchers and research ethics committees. (shrink)