Ethics Governance
Ethics & Governance - Resources and Articles |
| Articles indexes: a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z | other | |
|
|
| Article - Abstract. To view full article click on the article title. | |
eMJA: Donald Chalmers and Philip Pettit, Towards a consensual culture in the ethical review of research Donald Chalmers and Philip Pettit, Towards a consensual culture in the ethical review of research. 2: Recommendations for the reform of ethical review Recommendation 1: There should be widespread discussion of the dangers of an adversarial system. It is now commonly recognised in regulatory circles that regulation can often be counterproductive: that the area is prone to a variety of paradoxical effects whereby tougher regulation — in particular, adversarial regulation — means less compliance rather than more.12 Those who have assumed responsibility for the ethical review of research on humans, and indeed the ethical review of other enterprises too, need to recognise that similar effects are likely to plague their own areas of concern. Recommendation 2: Ethics committees should make a sustained attempt to convince their relevant research communities that they do not see themselves in an oppositional role, but, rather, that their aim is to cooperate with those communities so as to facilitate ethically informed research. This effect can probably be best achieved by the adoption of some of the initiatives outlined in illustrating what a posture of trust would involve (see section on The goal of ethical review). Recommendation 3: Institutional changes need to be made that would provide incentives for ethics committees to be less adversarial and that would signal a less adversarial disposition to research communities. In particular, there should clearly be incentives in place to make ethics committees reluctant to turn a proposal down without serious consideration and negotiation. For example, researchers might have a right to appeal against a committee decision; in which case a committee that turned down a proposal would run the risk of having the decision overturned or of being asked to think again. Certainly, every committee should be required to present an annual report to its host institution in which it has to document its record in approving research projects and in negotiating about any reservations that it may have had. Full Article: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/jan19/chalmers/chabox2.html |
|
2006 Ethics-Governance.com |
|||