International variation in ethics committee requirements: comparisons across five Westernised nations
BMC Medical Ethics 3 (1):1-8 (2002)
|Abstract||Background Ethics committees typically apply the common principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice to research proposals but with variable weighting and interpretation. This paper reports a comparison of ethical requirements in an international cross-cultural study and discusses their implications. Discussion The study was run concurrently in New Zealand, UK, Israel, Canada and USA and involved testing hypotheses about believability of testimonies regarding alleged child sexual abuse. Ethics committee requirements to conduct this study ranged from nil in Israel to considerable amendments designed to minimise participant harm in New Zealand. Assessment of minimal risk is a complex and unreliable estimation further compounded by insufficient information on probabilities of particular individuals suffering harm. Estimating potential benefits/ risks ratio and protecting participants' autonomy similarly are not straightforward exercises. Summary Safeguarding moral/humane principles should be balanced with promotion of ethical research which does not impede research posing minimal risk to participants. In ensuring that ethical standards are met and research has scientific merit, ethics committees have obligations to participants (to meet their rights and protect them from harm); to society (to ensure good quality research is conducted); and to researchers (to treat their proposals with just consideration and respect). To facilitate meeting all these obligations, the preferable focus should be promotion of ethical research, rather than the prevention of unethical research, which inevitably results in the impediment of researchers from doing their work. How the ethical principles should be applied and balanced requires further consideration.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gary Allen (2008). Getting Beyond Form Filling: The Role of Institutional Governance in Human Research Ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (2).
John D. Pringle & Donald C. Cole (forthcoming). Health Research in Complex Emergencies: A Humanitarian Imperative. Journal of Academic Ethics.
Sara Svensson & Sven Ove Hansson (2007). Protecting People in Research: A Comparison Between Biomedical and Traffic Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (1).
Allan Okech (2010). Ethics in Research in Mathematics Education. Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (2):129-135.
Andrzej Górski (2006). The Responsible Conduct of Basic and Clinical Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):3-4.
Borys Alberto Cornejo Moreno & Gress Marissell Gómez Arteaga (2012). Violation of Ethical Principles in Clinical Research. Influences and Possible Solutions for Latin America. BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):35-.
William E. Smythe & Maureen J. Murray (2001). A Respectful Reply to Gottlieb and Lasser. Ethics and Behavior 11 (2):195 – 199.
Martin Tolich (2009). The Principle of Caveat Emptor: Confidentiality and Informed Consent as Endemic Ethical Dilemmas in Focus Group Research. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1).
Bridget Pratt & Bebe Loff (2013). A Framework to Link International Clinical Research to the Promotion of Justice in Global Health. Bioethics 27 (3).
John McManus, Annette McClinton, Robert Gerhardt & Michael Morris (2007). Performance of Ethical Military Research is Possible: On and Off the Battlefield. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3).
Marcel J. H. Kenter (forthcoming). Regulating Human Participants Protection in Medical Research and the Accreditation of Medical Research Ethics Committees in the Netherlands. Journal of Academic Ethics.
Bridget Pratt & Bebe Loff (2011). Justice in International Clinical Research. Developing World Bioethics 11 (2):75-81.
Martin Tolich (2008). Guidelines for Community-Based Ethics Review of Children's Science Fair Projects. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (4).
James M. DuBois (2004). Universal Ethical Principles in a Diverse Universe: A Commentary on Monshi and Zieglmayer's Case Study. Ethics and Behavior 14 (4):313 – 319.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-11-17
Total downloads1 ( #274,556 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?