Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?

Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):517-520 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Review boards responsible for vetting the ethical conduct of research have been criticised for their costliness, unreliability and inappropriate standards when evaluating some non-medical research, but the basic value of mandatory ethical review has not been questioned. When the standards that review boards use to evaluate research proposals are applied to review board practices, it is clear that review boards do not respect researchers or each other, lack merit and integrity, are not just and are not beneficent. The few benefits of mandatory ethical review come at a much greater, but mainly hidden, social cost. It is time that responsibility for the ethical conduct of research is clearly transferred to researchers, except possibly in that small proportion of cases where prospective research participants may be so intrinsically vulnerable that their well-being may need to be overseen

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,745

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How not to argue against mandatory ethics review.David Hunter - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):521-524.
Do we need research ethics committees?Mark Sheehan - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):485-485.
Getting the justification for research ethics review right.Michael Dunn - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):527-528.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-08-04

Downloads
28 (#138,667)

6 months
10 (#1,198,792)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?