Abstract
It has become almost a truism to describe the interaction between research ethics committees and researchers as being marred by distrust and conflict. The ethical conduct of researchers is increasingly a matter of institutional concern because of the degree to which non-compliance with national standards can expose the entire institution to risk. This has transformed research ethics into what some have described as a research ethics industry. In an operational sense, there is considerable focus on modifying research behaviour through a combination of education and sanctions. The assessment of whether a researcher is ‘ethical’ is too often based on whether they submit their work for review by an ethics committee. However, is such an approach making a useful contribution to the actual ethical conduct of research and the protection of the interests of participants? Does a focus on ethical review minimise institutional risk? Instead it has been suggested that ethics committees may be distorting or frustrating useful research and are promoting a culture of either mindless rule following or frustrated resistance. An alternative governance approach is required. There is a need for a strong institutional focus on promoting and supporting the reflective practice of researchers through every stage of their work. By situating research ethics within the broader framework of institutional governance, this paper suggests it is possible to establish arrangements that actually facilitate excellent and ethical research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The research funding to an institution comes from multiple sources, so any impact upon funding (e.g. from the National Health and Medical Research Council) might initially impact upon a section of research funding to the institution. However, given the degree to which multiple funding bodies require institutional compliance with the relevant national framework, there may be a cascading effect that impacts upon most, or at least a significant proportion of an institution’s funding.
For example, in 2005 this matter received considerable attention during the plenary and concurrent sessions of both the NHMRC conference on human research ethics and the annual conference of the Australasian Research Managers Society.
References
Abate, T., & Russel, S. (2001). Shutdown puts spotlight on human research Experts say Johns Hopkins case reflects problems across U.S. Retrieved 7 Mar 2002 from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-.
Allen, G. (2005). Griffith University research ethics advisor system. HREC Bulletin, Summer, 9.
Allen, G. (2005). Griffith University HREC Annual Report 2004/05. Brisbane: Griffith University.
ALRC, & AHEC. (2001). Protection of Human Genetic Information: Issues Paper. Canberra: Australian Law Reform Commission.
Ashcroft, R. E. (1999). The new national statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans: A social theoretic perspective. Monash Bioethics Review, 18(4), 14–17 (Ethics Committee Supplement).
Breen, K. (2002). Improving Australia's ethical review processes – Slow and steady wins the race. Monash Bioethics Review, 21(3), 58–62.
Breen, K., McNeil, J., & Walsh, M. (2005). Improving the governance of health research. The Medical Journal of Australia, 182(9), 468–471.
Dodds, S., Albury, R., & Thomson, C. (1994). Ethical research and ethics committee review of social and behavioural research proposals: report to the Department of Human Services and Health. Canberra, ACT: Dept. of Human Services.
Dodds, S. (2002). Is the Australian HREC system sustainable? Monash Bioethics Review, 21(3), 43–48.
Dotterweich, D. P., & Garrison, S. (1998). Research ethics of business academic researchers at AACSB institutions. Teaching Business Ethics, 1, 431–447.
Federman, D. D., Hanna, K. E., & Rodriguez, L. L. (2003). Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Fitzgerald, M. H., & Yule, E. (2004). Open and closed committees. Monash Bioethics Review, 23(2), 35–49.
Frew, R. (2001). Research ethics committees: What can we learn from the Western European and United States experience. Monash Bioethics Review, 20(2), 61–77.
Furedi, F. (2002). Don't rock the research boat. The Times, January 11.
Glover, B., McBriarty, L., Dibb-Smith, J., Johnstone, R., Thiel, D., & Clifford, R. (2005). Report of the panel reviewing Office for Research, Griffith University.
Gold, J. L., & Dewa, C. S. (2005). Institutional Review Boards and Multisite Studies in Health Services Research: Is there a better way? Health Services Research, 40(1), 291–308. DOI 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00354.x.
Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414.
Hart, H. L. A. (1999). The elements of law(Article 1961). Retrieved 15 Mar 2002 from http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/rwarner/justice/syllabus/helement.html.
Hoonaard, W. v. d., Given, L., Lévy, J., McGinn, M., O’Neill, P., Palys, T., et al. (2004). Giving voice to the spectrum: Report of the Social Sciences and Humanities Working Committee. Ontario: Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics.
Hotchin, S. (2001). Johns Hopkins’ studies involving human subjects suspended following healthy volunteer's death. Retrieved 7 Mar 2002 from http://www.sonoma.edu/users/n/nolan/n400/johnshopkins.htm.
Iphofen, R. (2004). A code to keep away judges and MPs. The Times, January 16.
Israel, M. (2004). Ethics and the Governance of Criminological Research in Australia. Sydney: Report for the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Keiger, D., & De Pasquale, S. (2002). Trials & tribulation. Johns Hopkins Magazine, February 2002.
Komesaroff, P. A. (2002). Response to Susan Dodds: Is the Australian HREC system sustainable. Monash Bioethics Review, 21(3), 68–71.
Lash, S. (1994). Expert-systems or situated interpretation culture and institutions in disorganised culture. In U. Beck, A. Giddens & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernisation. Oxford: Polity.
Loff, B., & Black, J. (2004). Research ethics committees: what is their contribution. Medical Journal of Australia, 181(8), 440–441.
Lux, A. L., Edwards, S. W., & Osborne, J. P. (2000). Responses of local research ethics committees to a study with approval from a multicentre research ethics committee. British Medical Journal, 320(7243), 1182–1183.
McNeill, P. M., Berglund, C. A., & Webster, I. W. (1990). Reviewing the reviewers: a survey of institutional ethics committees in Australia. The Medical Journal of Australia, 152, 289–296.
Misztal, B., A. (1996). Trust in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity.
NBAC (2001). Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Maryland: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.
NHMRC. (1999). National statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans. Canberra: Australian Government.
Oakes, M. (2002). Risks and wrongs in social science research. Evaluation Review, 26(5), 443–479.
Payne, S. L. (2000). Challenges for research ethics and moral knowledge construction in the applied social sciences. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(4), 307–318.
Ramcharan, P., & Cutcliffe, J. R. (2001). Judging the ethics of qualitative research: considering the ‘ethics as process’ model. Health and Social Care in the Community, 9(6), 358–366.
Schwartz, M. (2000). Why ethical codes constitute an unconscionable regression. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 173–184.
Shaul, R. Z. (2002). Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees. Critical Care, 6(2), 121–122.
Shore, N., & West, P. (2005). Social work researchers and the Institutional Review Board: Benefits, Challenges, and Ideas for Support. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 2(2).
Singer, P. (1989, 14 Nov 1989). Rats, patients and people: Issues in the ethical regulation of research. Paper presented at the Annual lecture, Coombs Lecture Theatre, Australian National University.
Thompson, W. C. (1984). Research on human judgement and decision making: implications for informed consent and institutional review. In B. H. Stanley, J. E. Sieber, & G. B. Melton (Eds.) Research ethics: A psychological approach (pp. 37–72). London: University Nebraska Press.
Unknown, M. (2000). News in brief: Research suspensions. Monash Bioethics Review, 19(2), 1 (Ethics Committee Supplement).
Woodward, A. (1994). Making ethics part of real work. In N. Preston (Ed.)Ethics for the public sector: Education and Training (pp. 219–236). Leichardt: The Federation Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Allen, G. Getting Beyond Form Filling: The Role of Institutional Governance in Human Research Ethics. J Acad Ethics 6, 105–116 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9057-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9057-9