Reviewing code consistency is important, but research ethics committees must also make a judgement on scientific justification, methodological approach and competency of the research team

Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (12):874-875 (2018)

We have followed with interest the commentaries arising from Moore and Donnellys1 argument that authorities in charge of research ethics committees should focus primarily on establishing code-consistent reviews.1 We broadly agree with Savulescu’s2 argument that ethics committees should become more expert, but in a different way and for a different reason. We have recently been working with the UK Health Research Authority analysing the outcomes of their ‘Shared Ethical Debate’ exercises.3 Each ShED exercise involves the circulation of a single research project to a number of RECs. The resulting minutes from each REC are compared along with the final decisions made by each REC on the project under consideration. This process was originally an administrative exercise designed to promote greater consistency among the 60 or so ethics committees that were brought under the HRA ) umbrella within the UK National Health Service. Over 20 ShEDs have been run, and although the process has significant weaknesses and has not always been run consistently, the results of the exercises are fascinating. Broadly speaking, NHS RECs have been getting more consistent over time in terms of their decision-making, but the reasons for the final decisions as described in the committee minutes continue to vary widely. Qualitative research now needs to be done to understand why different committees can have such different discussions in relation to exactly the same research project and yet come to essentially the same conclusion. As part of our analysis of the ShED data, we looked at …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2018-105107
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 46,282
External links

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

The Job of ‘Ethics Committees’.Andrew Moore & Andrew Donnelly - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (7):481-487.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Job of ‘Ethics Committees’.Andrew Moore & Andrew Donnelly - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (7):481-487.
Ethics Committees in France.François-André Isambert - 1989 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (4):445-456.
Code-Consistent Ethics Review: Defence of a Hybrid Account.G. Owen Schaefer - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (7):494-495.


Added to PP index

Total views
8 ( #875,176 of 2,285,981 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #571,252 of 2,285,981 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature