Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Is 'inconsistency' in research ethics committee decision-making really a problem? An empirical investigation and reflection
Authors: Angell, Emma L.
Jackson, C. J.
Ashcroft, R. E.
Bryman, A.
Windridge, K.
Dixon-Woods, Mary
First Published: 1-Jun-2007
Publisher: Royal Society of Medicine Press
Citation: Clinical Ethics, 2007, 2 (2), pp. 92-99
Abstract: Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are frequently a focus of complaints from researchers, but evidence about the operation and decisions of RECs tends to be anecdotal. We conducted a systematic study to identify and compare the ethical issues raised in 54 letters to researchers about the same 18 applications submitted to three RECs over one year. The most common type of ethical trouble identified in REC letters related to informed consent, followed by scientific design and conduct, care and protection of research participants, confidentiality, recruitment and documentation. Community considerations were least frequently raised. There was evidence of variability in the ethical troubles identified and the remedies recommended. This analysis suggests that some principles may be more institutionalized than others, and offers some evidence of inconsistency between RECs. Inconsistency is often treated as evidence of incompetence and caprice, but a more sophisticated understanding of the role of RECs and their functioning is required.
DOI Link: 10.1258/147775007781029500
ISSN: 1477-7509
Type: Article
Rights: This is the author’s final draft of the paper published as Clinical Ethics, 2007, 2 (2), pp. 92-99. The final published version is available at, doi: 10.1258/147775007781029500.
Appears in Collections:Published Articles, Dept. of Health Sciences

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Content_analysis_REC_letter_revised_finalsubmitted.pdf338.02 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.