David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Academic Ethics 10 (4):335-352 (2012)
The role of the Research Ethics Committee (REC) in the design, conduct and dissemination of scientific research is still evolving and many important questions remain unanswered. Hence, the aim of this paper is to address some of the uncertainty that exists around the role and responsibilities of RECs and to discuss some of the controversy that exists over the criteria that RECs should follow when evaluating a research proposal. The discussion is organised around five of the major roles currently performed by RECs when assessing proposals in the biomedical sciences. It will be shown that these five roles need to be critically evaluated and reassessed. The five roles addressed are: assessing the legitimacy and validity of the informed consent process, second, conducting a comprehensive risk/benefit analysis, third, assessing the validity of a research proposal, fourth, ensuring that researchers observe the social norms, values, customs, traditions and laws that prevail in the community or jurisdiction in which the research will be conducted and finally, monitoring the research project as it unfolds and providing an ongoing advisory and consultancy service to both new and experienced researchers. In reassessing the role of the REC, this paper concludes with a set of general recommendations for RECs. These provide some guidance on the minimum criteria that should be followed when RECs evaluate proposals. These guidelines will be beneficial for new and experienced members of REC, and will help to make the process a more objective, efficient and standardised process. The guidelines will also be beneficial for researchers in the biomedical sciences who are preparing proposals for ethical review
|Keywords||Research ethics Research ethics committee Informed consent Quality assurance Social norms|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Tom L. Beauchamp (2009). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Ulrich Beck, Mark Ritter & Jennifer Brown (1993). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Environmental Values 2 (4):367-368.
Paul Feyerabend (1974). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Humanities Press.
Tom L. Beauchamp (2011). Informed Consent: Its History, Meaning, and Present Challenges. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (04):515-523.
J. P. Bentley (2004). The Influence of Risk and Monetary Payment on the Research Participation Decision Making Process. Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (3):293-298.
Citations of this work BETA
Neroli Sheldon & Michelle Wallace (2015). Business Research Ethics: Participant Observer Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics 128 (2):267-277.
Similar books and articles
Michelle Cunningham (2010). Research Ethics in a Business School Context: The Establishment of a Review Committee and the Primary Issues of Concern. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (1):43-66.
Jérôme Ateudjieu, John Williams, Marie Hirtle, Cédric Baume, Joyce Ikingura, Alassane Niaré & Dominique Sprumont (2010). Training Needs Assessment in Research Ethics Evaluation Among Research Ethics Committee Members in Three African Countries: Cameroon, Mali and Tanzania. Developing World Bioethics 10 (2):88-98.
Andreas Hoecht (2011). Whose Ethics, Whose Accountability? A Debate About University Research Ethics Committees. Ethics and Education 6 (3):253 - 266.
Katinka de Wet (2010). The Importance of Ethical Appraisal in Social Science Research: Reviewing a Faculty of Humanities' Research Ethics Committee. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (4):301-314.
Brenda Louw & Rina Delport (2006). Contextual Challenges in South Africa: The Role of a Research Ethics Committee. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 4 (1-4):39-60.
Keymanthri Moodley & Landon Myer (2007). Health Research Ethics Committees in South Africa 12 Years Into Democracy. BMC Medical Ethics 8 (1):1-8.
Teresa Moore & Kristy Richardson (2013). The Low Risk Research Ethics Application Process at CQUniversity Australia. Journal of Academic Ethics 11 (3):211-230.
Marcel J. H. Kenter (2009). Regulating Human Participants Protection in Medical Research and the Accreditation of Medical Research Ethics Committees in the Netherlands. Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):33-43.
Oonagh Corrigan (ed.) (2009). The Limits of Consent: A Socio-Ethical Approach to Human Subject Research in Medicine. Oxford University Press.
Morenike Oluwatoyin Folayan, Aisha Adaranijo, Florita Durueke, Ademola Ajuwon, Adebayo Adejumo, Oliver Ezechi, Kola Oyedeji & Olayide Akanni (2012). Impact of Three Years Training on Operations Capacities of Research Ethics Committees in Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics 12 (3):1-14.
Jill A. Fisher (2006). Procedural Misconceptions and Informed Consent: Insights From Empirical Research on the Clinical Trials Industry. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (3):251-268.
Rachel Vreeman, Eunice Kamaara, Allan Kamanda, David Ayuku, Winstone Nyandiko, Lukoye Atwoli, Samuel Ayaya, Peter Gisore, Michael Scanlon & Paula Braitstein (2012). A Qualitative Study Using Traditional Community Assemblies to Investigate Community Perspectives on Informed Consent and Research Participation in Western Kenya. BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):23-.
David Shaw & Bernice Elger (2013). The Relevance of Relevance in Research. Swiss Medical Weekly.
Joses Kirigia, Charles Wambebe & Amido Baba-Moussa (2005). Status of National Research Bioethics Committees in the WHO African Region. BMC Medical Ethics 6 (1):1-7.
Added to index2012-10-07
Total downloads9 ( #363,659 of 1,906,966 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,378 of 1,906,966 )
How can I increase my downloads?