International variation in ethics committee requirements: comparisons across five Westernised nations [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
BMC Medical Ethics 3 (1):1-8 (2002)
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||info:mesh/Israel info:mesh/Behavioral Research Behavioral Research Canada Child Child Abuse, Sexual Cross-Cultural Comparison Ethical Review Ethics Committees, Research Great Britain Human Experimentation Humans Informed Consent Israel New Zealand Personal Autonomy Research Design Risk Assessment United States info:mesh/United States info:mesh/Informed Consent info:mesh/Great Britain info:mesh/Ethical Review info:mesh/Child info:mesh/Research Design info:mesh/Humans info:mesh/Ethics Committees, Research info:mesh/New Zealand info:mesh/Personal Autonomy info:mesh/Cross-Cultural Comparison info:mesh/Child Abuse, Sexual info:mesh/Risk Assessment info:mesh/Canada info:mesh/Human Experimentation|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Kyoko Wada (2011). The Concept of Minimal Risk: The Need for Better Guidance on the Ethics Review Process. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):27 - 29.
Similar books and articles
Gary Allen (2008). Getting Beyond Form Filling: The Role of Institutional Governance in Human Research Ethics. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (2):105-116.
John D. Pringle & Donald C. Cole (2009). Health Research in Complex Emergencies: A Humanitarian Imperative. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):115-123.
Sara Svensson & Sven Ove Hansson (2007). Protecting People in Research: A Comparison Between Biomedical and Traffic Research. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (1):99-115.
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. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):99-108.
Bridget Pratt & Bebe Loff (2013). A Framework to Link International Clinical Research to the Promotion of Justice in Global Health. Bioethics 27 (3):n/a-n/a.
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):297-303.
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.
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):303-310.
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.
Added to index2010-11-17
Total downloads2 ( #322,275 of 1,096,498 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #238,630 of 1,096,498 )
How can I increase my downloads?