Research question and aim Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) aim to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organizations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice. In 2020, a CEC was established in an Oncology Research Hospital in the North of Italy. This paper describes the development process and the activities performed 20 months from the CEC’s implementation, to increase knowledge about CEC’s implementation strategy. Research design We collected quantitative data related to number and characteristics (...) of CEC activities carried out from October 2020 to June 2022 using the CEC internal database. Data were reported descriptively and compared with data from the literature to provide a complete overview of the CEC’s development and implementation process. Participants and research context The study has been conducted at the local health authority (LHA) of Reggio Emilia. It is a report of the activities provided by the CEC, where no HPs or patients were involved. Ethical Considerations The report is part of a larger study named EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC), which has been approved by the Local Ethics Committee (AUSLRE Protocollo n° 2022/0026554 of 24/02/2022). EvaCEC is also the first author's PhD project. Findings In total, the CEC performed 7 ethics consultations (EC), published three policies related to particular ethical questions of clinical and organizational practice, provided one educational online course on ethics consultation targeting employed HPs, and promoted a specific dissemination process among the different departments of the LHA. According to our results, the CEC widely fulfilled the standard threefold set of clinical ethics support services tasks (namely, ethics consultation, ethics education, and policy development), but further investigations are needed to evaluate the CEC’s impact on clinical practice. Conclusion Our findings may increase knowledge regarding the composition, role, and tasks of a CEC in an Italian setting, informing future strategies and efforts to regulate these institutions officially. (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)

With the recent Clinical Trials Directive, a degree of harmonisation into research ethics committees across Europe, including the time taken to assess a trial proposal and the kinds of issues a committee should take into account, has been introduced by the European Union . How four different member states—Hungary, Portugal, Sweden and the UK—have chosen to implement the directive is shown. Although this has resulted in four very different ways of structuring RECs, similar themes are present in (...) all four cases, such as centralisation of control over RECs within member states, harmonisation of REC procedures across the EU and increased role of political decision making with regard to such committees. (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)

The Polish equivalents of Research Ethics Committees are Bioethics Committees (BCs). A questionnaire study has been undertaken to determine their situation. The BC is usually comprised of 13 members. Nine of these are doctors and four are non-doctors. In 2006 BCs assessed an average of 27.3 ± 31.7 (range: 0–131) projects of clinical trials and 71.1 ± 139.8 (range: 0–638) projects of other types of medical research. During one BC meeting an average of 10.3 ± (...) 14.7 (range: 0–71) projects of medical research were assessed (2006). The amendment of Polish laws according with Directive 2001/20/EC caused a percentage increase in BCs which assessed less than 20 projects per year (16% vs. 33% or 42% in 2003 vs. 2005 or 2006 respectively, p < 0,05). The results confirm the usefulness of the current practice of creating BCs by medical universities, medical institutes and regional chambers of physicians and dentists but rationalization of the workload for individual BCs is necessary. (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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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 (...) class='Hi'>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)

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)

International transfers of human biological material (biospecimens) and data are increasing, and commentators are starting to raise concerns about how donor wishes are protected in such circumstances. These exchanges are generally made under contractual material transfer agreements (MTAs). This paper asks what role, if any, should research ethics committees (RECs) play in ensuring legal and ethical conduct in such exchanges. It is recommended that RECs should play a more active role in the future development of best practice (...) MTAs involving exchange of biospecimens and data and in monitoring compliance. (shrink)

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)

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)

This paper presents a personal view on the work of RECs from three different viewpoints: as a researcher, as an occasional participant in other people's studies, and as a potential beneficiary from medical research. It is concluded, from all three perspectives, that whilst RECs are making a valuable contribution to medical research there is a danger that in pursuit of their day-to-day business, they may lose sight of their ultimate purpose, which is to help promote the efficient conduct (...) of ethically sound research for the public benefit. (shrink)

This paper reports an initiative from the National Research Ethics Service (UK) and research ethics committees in the UK to develop a shared ethical debate between committees and to promote standards of ethical review, exploring the problems and practicalities of such an approach.

BackgroundPublication and outcome reporting bias is often caused by researchers selectively choosing which scientific results and outcomes to publish. This behaviour is ethically significant as it distorts the literature used for future scientific or clinical decision-making. This study investigates the practicalities of using ethics applications submitted to a UK National Health Service research ethics committee to monitor both types of reporting bias.MethodsAs part of an internal audit we accessed research ethics database records for studies submitting (...) an end of study declaration to the Hampshire A research ethics committee between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2011. A literature search was used to establish the publication status of studies. Primary and secondary outcomes stated in application forms were compared with outcomes reported in publications.ResultsOut of 116 studies the literature search identified 57 publications for 37 studies giving a publication rate of 32 %. Original Research Ethics Committee applications could be obtained for 28 of the published studies. Outcome inconsistencies were found in 16 of the published studies.ConclusionsThis study showed that the problem of publication and outcome reporting bias is still significant in the UK. The method described here demonstrates that UK NHS research ethics committees are in a good position to detect such bias due to their unique access to original research protocols. Data gathered in this way could be used by the Health Research Authority to encourage higher levels of transparency in UK research. (shrink)

OBJECTIVES: To show that a Local Research Ethics Committee (LREC) can carry out an audit of ethical standards in research. To find out if a researcher met certain ethical standards in recruiting subjects for clinical trials and in obtaining their consent. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire. SETTING: Clinical research by one doctor during one year. SUBJECTS: Eleven patients entered in clinical trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success in ethics committee obtaining data. Achievement of ethical standards in recruitment of (...) subjects and in obtaining consent. RESULTS: The audit was successfully carried out and standards were partly met. CONCLUSIONS: Local Research Ethics Committees can carry out audits of the conduct of research projects which they have approved. Provision for possible audits can be made at the time of application to the committee. Our committee thought the ethical standards in the research which we audited were acceptable. (shrink)

Dual Use Research of Concern constitutes a major challenge for research practice and oversight on the local, national and international level. The situation in Germany is shaped by two partly competing suggestions of how to regulate security-related research: The German Ethics Council, as an independent political advisory body, recommended a series of measures, including national legislation on DURC. Competing with that, the German National Academy of Sciences and the German Research Foundation, as two major professional (...) bodies, presented a strategy which draws on the self-control of science and, inter alia, suggests expanding the scope of research ethics committees to an evaluation of DURC. This situation is taken as an occasion to further discuss the scope and limits of professional self-control with respect to security-related research. The role of RECs as professional bodies of science is particularly analyzed, referring to the theoretical backgrounds of professionalism. Two key sociological features of professionalism – ethical orientation and professional self-control – are discussed with respect to the practice of biomedical science. Both attributes are then analyzed with respect to the assessment of DURC by RECs. In conclusion, it is stated that issues of biosecurity transcend the boundaries of the scientific community and that a more comprehensive strategy should be implemented encompassing both professional self-control and legal oversight. (shrink)

Whilst Colin Parker and I are in broad disagreement we would nevertheless agree that RECs have both political and ethical functions, albeit to differing degrees, and that a proper account of ethical expertise needs to be given. The uses RECs make of ethical experts and expertise and the way in which this might be recognised remains, from my perspective, open for debate. My only conclusion is that it should be recognised.

Recent laws, and their interpretation, have made clinical research more difficult to do, and sometimes impossible. Furthermore the results of that research which can be done may even be unreliable. This is certainly against the public interest, and indeed the individual patient interest as well. But ethics committees have to abide by the law and so even though it is surely unethical to work against the public and individual interest that is exactly what ethics (...) class='Hi'>committees now have to endorse. The unintended consequences of the new regulations must be reduced by amending the law. (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.

Research ethics committees are charged with providing an opinion on whether research proposals are ethical. These committees are overseen by a central office that acts for the Department of Health and hence the State. An advisory group has recently reported back to the Department of Health, recommending that it should deal with inconsistency in the decisions made by different RECs. This article questions the desirability and feasibility of questing for consistent ethical decisions.

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)

Research ethics committees in Germany usually don’t have philosophers as members and if so, only contingently, not provided for by statute. This is interesting from a philosophical perspective, assuming that ethics is a discipline of philosophy. It prompts the question what role philosophers play in those committees they can be found in. Eight qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the self-perception of philosophers regarding their contribution to research ethics committees. The results (...) show that the participants generally don’t view themselves as ethics experts. They are rather unanimous on the competencies they think they contribute to the committee but not as to whether those are philosophical competencies or applied ethical ones. In some cases they don’t see a big difference between their role and the role of the jurist member. In the discussion section of this paper I bring up three topics, prompted by the interviews, that need to be addressed: (1) I argue that the interviewees’ unwillingness to call themselves ethics experts might have to do with a too narrow understanding ofethics expertise. (2) I argue that the disagreement among the interviewees concerning therelationship between moral philosophy and applied ethicsmight be explained on a theoretical or on a practical level. (3) I argue that there is some lack of clarity concerning therelationship between ethics and lawin research ethics committees and that further work needs to be done here. All three topics, I conclude, need further investigation. (shrink)

In this paper the authors argue that research ethics committees should not be paternalistic by rejecting research that poses risk to people competent to decide for themselves. However it is important they help to ensure valid consent is sought from potential recruits and protect vulnerable people who cannot look after their own best interests. The authors first describe the tragic deaths of Jesse Gelsinger and Ellen Roche. They then discuss the following claims to support their case: (...) competent individuals are epistemologically and ethically in the best position to say which risks are reasonable for them, so RECs should be no more restrictive than the “normal” constraints on people taking risks with themselves; RECs do not judge individual competence ; individual liberty is mostly limited by what serves the public interest, and RECs do not determine public interest; RECs may have a paternalistic role in preventing exploitation of competent people vulnerable to the use of incentives, and in protecting the interests of incompetent people; however, the moral and political authority of RECs has not been established in this respect. (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)

Currently, research ethics committees in the UK meet behind closed doors—their workings and most of the content of their decisions are unavailable to the general public. There is a significant tension between this current practice and a broader societal presumption of openness. As a form of public institution, the REC system exists to oversee research from the perspective of society generally.An important part of this tension turns on the kind of justification that might be offered for (...) the REC system. In this paper I adapt Daniels and Sabin’s accountability for reasonableness model for just resource allocation to the research ethics context to provide some structural legitimacy and to enable progress on the question of openness. After considering the consequences of adopting this model for open REC meetings, I then examine some reasons that might be offered against open meetings. These arguments do not overwhelm the core intuitions behind the presumption of openness but they do, I suggest, give us reason to retreat from fully public meetings. I conclude that there should be important adjustments to the system towards public accountability and that there are grounds for stopping short of fully public meetings. (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)

This paper describes the establishment of a research ethics committee in a business school within a university in Ireland. Many of the procedural issues encountered by the Kemmy Business School REC with respect to its modus operandi are outlined. The difficulties faced by business school RECs arising from the need to simultaneously accommodate both academic and corporate stakeholders are discussed in the context of the ethicality of research carried out in the business domain. The experiences of the (...) authors, both of whom have served as respective chairpersons of the Kemmy Business School REC since its inception, inform the discussion. Given the dearth in the literature on research ethics in a business school context, the objective of this paper is to outline the experiences of one business school REC with respect to how it operates in order to assist other committees through the establishment phase and beyond. (shrink)

Personal data protection is an ethical issue. In this study we analyzed how research ethics committees (RECs) and data protection officers (DPOs) handle personal data protection issues in research protocols. We conducted a mixed-methods study. We included heads (or delegated representatives) of RECs and DPOs from universities and public research institutes in Croatia. The participants provided information about data protection issues in research and their mutual collaboration on those issues through structured interviews that contained (...) closed and open-ended questions. Qualitative description was used to analyze open-ended questions. The results showed that 55% of the REC representatives were not aware who was DPO in their institution. Among RECs, 65% never contacted the DPO. There were 61% of RECs who reported that they received no training from the organization on personal data protection. When asked about barriers to personal data protection in their institutions, 26% of REC members highlighted the lack of a clear protocol for assessing personal data protection issues, while 30% of DPOs mentioned lack of knowledge among researchers about personal data. In conclusion, we found that when it came to protecting personal data in research protocols, RECs and DPOs hardly ever worked together. When developing future personal data protection policies for academic and scientific research institutions, it is essential that RECs and DPOs should collaborate and both continue to expand/update their knowledge on personal data protection procedures. (shrink)

In this brief paper I intend to make some distinctions between the activities that research ethics committees are required to undertake as part of their role in protecting research participants. These functions are, identifying ethical issues and risks within research projects, providing advice on how to resolve these issues and risks without compromising the validity of the research and finally, when this cannot be achieved, deciding whether the research should still be allowed to (...) go ahead. Distinguishing these distinct functions allows us to determine what an appropriate membership of a Research Ethics Committee is. I will sketch out the implications of these functions for the appropriate membership of NHS and university based ethics committees in the UK. (shrink)

Some anomalies in the legislation governing National Research Ethics Service Research Ethics Committee (REC) 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.

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)

Members of a National Health Service, or other recognised Research Ethics Committee (REC), in deciding whether or not to withhold their assent for a clinical trial, must obey the law. If they do not do so, then they may become liable to pay personally negligence claims made by injured trials subjects. It could be no defence to say that members had consulted their own lower ethical standards; or merely that they had acted in good faith; or that they (...) had followed Department of Health (DH) guidelines, which do not have the force of law. The law requires that the rights, safety, and well-being of clinical trial subjects shall prevail over other interests. REC favourable opinion is a powerful endorsement of a trial, and prospective subjects are invited to rely upon it. REC members are legally bound to exercise their power to withhold assent to any clinical trial which does not give subjects the protection the law requires. (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.

Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Due to an administrative error, this article was accidentally published twice Online First with different DOIs. Humphreys S. Research ethics committees: The ineligibles. Research Ethics. doi: 10.1177/1747016112466979 However, the correct and citable version of the article remains: Humphreys S.. Research ethics committees: The ineligibles. Research Ethics. 11, 142−150. doi: 10.1177/1747016113489944.

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. (shrink)

In Turkey, there was no legal regulation of research on human beings until 1993. In that year “the amendment relating to drug researches” was issued. The main objectives of the regulation are to establish a central ethics committee and local ethics committees, and to provide administrative control.There are no compulsory clinical ethics lectures in the medical curriculum, so it is also proposed that research ethics committees play a central educational role by helping (...) physicians to be aware of moral problems and by contributing to the training of research teams. (shrink)

Research ethics committees, while in many ways an excellent innovation, do have some drawbacks. This paper examines three of these. The first problem of such committees is that their approval of specific projects in their own institutions acquires intrinsic value. The second problem relates to the possible devolution of responsibility from the investigator to the committee. The committee approves, the investigator feels relieved of some responsibility and things can be done to patients which neither the committee (...) nor the investigator might countenance if they had sole responsibility. The third problem arises directly from the bureaucratic nature of the committee itself. And one consequence of the resulting rigid guidelines is the insistence, by most committees, on the written consent of patients. Demanding this can, in some circumstances, mean giving the patient very disturbing information. The paper suggests that in patients with a fatal disease where trials compare two accepted therapies committees dispense with written consent. There is a commentary on this paper by Dr D J Weatherall of the Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford. (shrink)

On 1 May 2004 research ethics committees became legally accountable to a new government body, the United Kingdom Ethics Committee Authority. This marks the end of the self regulation of research ethics. This paper describes how this change in research ethics committee status has come about and explores the implications for research subjects, researchers, institutions, and for regulation of research.

Ethical review of applications to conduct research projects continues to be a focus of scrutiny and controversy. We argue that attention to the actual practices of ethical review has the potential to inform debate. We explore how research ethics committees (RECs) establish their position and authority through the texts they use in their correspondence with applicants. Using a discursive analysis applied to 260 letters, we identify four positions of particular interest: RECs positioned as disinterested and responsible; (...) as representing the interests of potential participants; as facilitating ethically sound, high-quality research; and as engaged in dialogue. These positions are used strategically to deflect criticism or complaint. This analysis has implications for reducing contestation between researchers and RECs, suggesting that more dialogic rather than hierarchical approaches to positioning might be helpful. (shrink)

The recently published Report of theAHAG on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees advocates major reforms of the NHS research ethics committees system. The main implications of the proposed changes and their probable effects on the major stakeholders are described.The Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the operation of NHS research ethics committees, set up in November 2004 by Lord Warner on behalf of the Department of Health, submitted its report in (...) June 2005.1 The report advocates major reforms of the research ethics committee system. The primary aim of the report is to streamline the processes around the approval of research projects and to pursue conformity of governance across Europe. Implicit in the report is the contention that failure to achieve this objective would be harmful to everyone with vested interests in improving health and social care. Moreover, it is stated that the reforms will enhance the mechanisms that protect the interests of all parties concerned.1Being mindful of two published critiques of the Warner Report, we suggest that its alleged benefits should not be taken at face value.2,3 In fact, the reformed system will give rise to moral failings akin to those of the existing system, but will differ from the existing system in its effect on the stakeholders. Thus, whereas the outgoing system has given each stakeholder a unique mixture of benefit and harm, the incoming system offers benefit only to sponsors and researchers and nothing but detriment to participants in research and consumers of its products.In the light of this conclusion, we finally suggest that the Warner Report be construed not merely as an ill-considered document, but rather as an ideological reflection of a long-established hegemonic contract fine-tuning itself to contemporary global challenges.To avoid …. (shrink)

This paper reports a European Forum for Good Clinical Practice workshop held in 2011 to consider a research ethics committee training syllabus, subsequent training needs and resources. The syllabus that was developed was divided into four competencies: committee working; scientific method; ethical analysis and the regulatory framework. Appropriate training needs for each, with possible resources, were discussed. Lack of funding for training was reported as a major problem but affordable alternatives were debated. Strengths and weaknesses of this approach (...) were discussed and the resultant proposal will be disseminated through the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice and the research ethics committees of member states. (shrink)