Human Research Ethics Committees: Examining their Roles and Practices

considerable time and resources are invested in the ethics review process. We present qualitative data on how human research ethics committee members and health researchers perceive the role and function of the committee. The findings are based on interviews with 34 Australian ethics committee members and 54 health researchers. Although all participants agreed that the primary role of the ethics committee was to protect participants, there was disagreement regarding the additional roles undertaken by committees. Of particular concern were the perceptions from some ethics committee members and researchers that ethics committees were working to protect the institution's interests, as well as being overprotective toward research participants. This has the potential to lead to poor relations and mistrust between ethics committees and researchers.     

Improving the Quality of Host Country Ethical Oversight of International Research: The Use of a Collaborative ‘Pre‐Review’ Mechanism for a Study of Fexinidazole for Human African Trypanosomiasis

Developing countries face numerous barriers to conducting effective and efficient ethics reviews of international collaborative research. In addition to potentially overlooking important scientific and ethical considerations, inadequate or insufficiently trained ethics committees may insist on unwarranted changes to protocols that can impair a study's scientific or ethical validity. Moreover, poorly functioning review systems can impose substantial delays on the commencement of research, which needlessly undermine the development of new interventions for urgent medical needs. In response to these concerns, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi), an independent nonprofit organization founded by a coalition of public sector and international organizations, developed a mechanism to facilitate more effective and efficient host country ethics review for a study of the use of fexinidazole for the treatment of late stage African Trypanosomiasis (HAT). The project involved the implementation of a novel ‘pre‐review’ process of ethical oversight, conducted by an ad hoc committee of ethics committee representatives from African and European countries, in collaboration with internationally recognized scientific experts. This article examines the process and outcomes of this collaborative process.     

Ethics committee recommendations for laboratory animals in private research in France

Complementary to existing legislation, non-public research companies in France have been working together voluntarily within an organization known as Grice (Interprofessional Working Group on Ethics Committees for Laboratory Animals/Groupe de Réflexion Interprofessionnel sur les Comites d'Ethique appliquée à l'animal de laboratoire) with the objective of creating institutional ethics committees in an effort to promote animal welfare and good scientific procedures. Each company's commitment to the creation of these committees has been expressed by signing the Charter. Each ethics committee is composed of at least three members, including one who is not a scientist; a veterinarian is highly desirable. The committee examines all procedures and protocols involving animals and hands down a favourable or unfavourable opinion, or requests improvements, especially concerning animal well-being. Consensual approval of the protocol is an essential requirement before the purchase or allocation of animals. The committee examines every aspect of laboratory animal housing and care, and inspects all temporary or permanent animal housing facilities. Grice will continue its efforts in relation with public research organizations as well as with groups and in other countries whose objectives are in line with its own.     

Publication: an ethical imperative.

Publication of medical research is both a monitor of the researcher''s ethics and an audit of the local or regional ethics committee that approved it. Selectivity of publication or of the intention to publish lessens this audit. Opinions differ about what is ethically allowable in clinical and benchtop medical research. Ethical permission and ethical monitoring of medical research are subject to a hierarchy of pyramidal controls, starting in hospital and ending with the local, institutional, or regional ethics committee. Currently, such committees function with widely varying degrees of efficiency and quality of output, and with differing viewpoints on many ethical issues. Without an a priori insistence by institutional ethics committees that there be an intention to publish all medical research involving human subjects, ethics committees cannot routinely be subject to the scrutiny or audit which they themselves demand of researchers.     

Pharmaceutical trials in general practice: the first 100 protocols. An audit by the clinical research ethics committee of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcome of 100 general practice based, multicentre research projects submitted to the ethics committee of the Royal College of General Practitioners by pharmaceutical companies or their agents between 1984 and 1989. DESIGN: Analysis of consecutive submitted protocols for stated objectives, study design, and outcomes; detailed review of committee minutes and correspondence in relation to amendment and approval; assessment of final reports submitted at conclusion of studies. SUBJECTS: 82 finally approved protocols, embracing 34,523 proposed trial subjects and 1195 proposed general practice investigators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success at enrolling subjects and investigators; commencement and completion data; validity of final report''s assessment of efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability; and method of use and dissemination of findings. RESULTS: 18 studies were not approved and 45 had to be amended. Randomised controlled trials comprised 46 of the original submissions. Remuneration considerations, inadequate information or consent sheets, pregnancy safety, the need to discontinue existing therapy, and suboptimal scientific content were major reasons for rejecting studies or asking for amendments. Of the 82 approved studies 8 were not started. Shortfalls of investigators (of 39%) and trial subjects (of 37%) and an overall 23% withdrawal rate were responsible for a significant incidence of inconclusive results. Within the six year follow up interval, only 19 of the studies had been formally published. CONCLUSIONS: This audit identified substantial ethical concerns in the process of approving multicentre general practice pharmaceutical research.     

Requirements for ethics committee review for studies submitted to Implementation Science

The requirement for ethics review of studies submitted to Implementation Science has been unclear. Therefore, in this editorial, we set out our requirements for ethics committee review of experimental and non-experimental studies. For any study that meets the criteria of human subject research (which includes research on healthcare providers), irrespective of study design, we will require proof of either satisfactory ethics committee review or of the granting of an official exemption or waiver.     

生命伦理学委员会

生命伦理学委员会是从伦理学角度审查人体试验研究,保护受试者权益的决策咨询组织。该委员会一般由来自法学、伦理学、医学、药学等领域的专家学者组成,其审查遵循的重要依据是世界医学会制订的《赫尔基辛宣言》。近年来,伦理委员会快速发展,但各伦理委员会审查质量参差不齐。因此,相关部门尚需加强对伦理委员会成员的培训,并加强对伦理委员会的监管,方能促进我国伦理委员会的良性发展。     

Review by a local medical research ethics committee of the conduct of approved research projects,by examination of patients' case notes,consent forms,and research records and by interview.

OBJECTIVE: To monitor the conduct of medical research projects that have already been approved by the local medical research ethics committee. DESIGN: Follow up study of ethically approved studies (randomly selected from all the studies approved in the previous year) by examination of patients'' case notes, consent forms, and research records and by interview of the researchers at their workplace. SETTING: Tayside, Scotland (mixed rural and urban population). SUBJECTS: 30 research projects approved by Tayside local medical research ethics committee. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to the agreed protocol, particularly for recruitment (obtaining and recording informed consent) and for specific requirements of the ethics committee, including notification of changes to the protocol and of adverse events. RESULTS: In one project only oral consent had been obtained, and in a quarter of the studies one or more consent forms were incorrectly completed. Inadequate filing of case notes in five studies and of consent forms in six made them unavailable for scrutiny. Adverse events were reported, but there was a general failure to report the abandoning or non-starting of projects in two studies the investigators failed to notify a change in the responsible researcher. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring of medical research by local medical research ethics committees promotes and preserves ethical standards, protects subjects and researchers, discourages fraud, and has the support of investigators. We recommend that 10% of projects should undergo on-site review, with all others monitored by questionnaire. This would require about six person hours of time and a salary bill of 120 pounds per study monitored.     

The current situation of health research and ethics in Sudan

At the beginning of the twentieth century, health research in the Sudan developed primarily as a function of the colonial British administration. Ethical issues in the medical profession in the Sudan are governed by the Sudan Medical Council. To address these issues, the Sudan Medical Council issued Medico-legal and Ethical Guidelines in 1967. This important document has focused principally on ethical issues arising in clinical medicine. Throughout the history of health research in Sudan it is very difficult to find any reference to research ethics. Nevertheless, there have been a few attempts to articulate ethics in health research. In 1979, Sudan witnessed the establishment of the first ethical review committee, which was established by the initiative of a group of doctors and scientists from the national health research laboratory. This committee got neither political nor institutional recognition. Therefore, it was not developed and came to an end shortly after its inception. Yet, in 2000 the FMOH established an ethical review committee (ERC). The functions of this committee were to review proposals of health research to be carried out in the country for ethical issues irrespective to the funding agents. Unfortunately, the committee devoted all the jobs in reviewing only externally-sponsored health research and research carried out by expatriate researchers or international organisations.     

Guidelines for Community-based Ethics Review of Children’s Science Fair Projects

Low-level community based ethics committees staffed by teachers, parents and community representatives can readily review children’s science fair projects subject to the revision of two core assumptions currently governing children’s Science Fairs. The first part of the paper recasts the New Zealand Royal Society guidelines from its primary emphasis on risk to a new assumption, without benefit there can be no risk. Equally, this revision gives more prominence to the participant information sheet, allowing it to act as a quasi application form which provides ethical transparency between student researchers, participants and a community based ethics committee. A second core assumption, more accurately labeled a cult of originality, produces a random, open-ended array of student topics taking ethics review beyond the confidence level of most community based ethics review committees. This paper reins in Science Fair coordinators recommending they make community level ethics review more manageable by providing a list of preapproved topics for those students wanting to conduct research involving human participants. These revised assumptions create a workable division of labour. Teachers’ preapproved topics involving human participants are more likely to be low risk, permitting community level ethics review to focus primarily on two aspects of the minimization of harm: first, for all participants, especially those with diminished autonomy, and second, for the child researchers themselves, as some participants may be unknown to the student. These revised assumptions make science and ethics more accessible to public education thus demonstrating how Science Fairs can lead students and the community into better understanding the role and function that ethics has in all scientific research human participants. Martin Tolich chaired New Zealand’s National Health Ethics committee, the multi-region ethics committee.     

Analysis of the status of subject recruitment in clinical trials in Shandong, China

Although subject recruitment for clinical trials in Shandong has been carried out with an awareness of international regulatory and ethical frameworks, there have been some defects in the recruitment process. The objective of this study is to analyze the current status of subject recruitment in Shandong. We conducted a survey among 198 principal investigators (PIs) and 543 subjects. The results were summarized and calculated as a percentage according to the responses to each question by PIs and subjects. This survey indicated that the ethics committee should strengthen the review of subject recruitment and enhance ethics training among board members. PIs should seek to improve the recruitment process.     

Enriching Our Views on Clinical Ethics: Results of a Qualitative Study of the Moral Psychology of Healthcare Ethics Committee Members

The contribution of healthcare ethics committee (HEC) members to HECs is fundamental. However, little is known about how HEC members view clinical ethics. We report results from a qualitative study of the moral psychology of HEC members. We found that contrary to the existing Kohlberg-based studies, HEC members hold a pragmatic non-expert view of clinical ethics based mainly on respect for persons and a commitment to the patient’s good. In general, HEC members hold deflationary views regarding moral theory. Ethical principles are not abstract foundations but the expression of moral commitments to patients that pre-exist awareness of moral theory. Emotions and proximity to patient sufferance fundamentally shape the views of HEC members on clinical ethics. Further work at the intersection of clinical ethics and qualitative research could bring to the foreground lay perspectives on moral problems that may differ from bioethics expert views.     

VIEWS OF THE PROCESS AND CONTENT OF ETHICAL REVIEWS OF HIV VACCINE TRIALS AMONG MEMBERS OF US INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS AND SOUTH AFRICAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES

Given the ethical controversies concerning HIV vaccine trials (HVTs), we aimed to understand through an exploratory study how members of institutional review boards (IRBs) in the United States (US) and research ethics committees (RECs) in South Africa (SA) view issues concerning the process and content of reviews of these studies. We mailed packets of 20 questionnaires to 12 US IRB chairs and administrators and seven REC chairs to distribute to their members. We received 113 questionnaires (76 from the US and 37 from SA). In both countries, members tended to be white males with advanced academic degrees. Compared to the US, SA members called for ‘major changes’ in HVT protocols more frequently (p = 0.004), and were less likely to think that HVT participants understood risks and benefits (p = 0.033) or informed consent forms (p = 0.000). In both countries, members were divided on several critical issues (e.g. the minimum standard for treatment for HVT participants who became infected during the HVT), but agreed that they needed more training. Of the SA respondents, 40% reported that they were ‘self‐taught’ in ethics. This study, the first we know of to offer quantitative data comparing US vs. non‐US IRBs/RECs, thus suggests key similarities and differences (e.g. compared to SA respondents, US respondents appeared to overestimate participants' understanding of informed consent), along with needs for education. These initial exploratory data in this area have important implications for IRBs, RECs, policy‐makers and scholars concerning future practice, training, policy, and investigations in research ethics, and prevention and treatment of HIV and other diseases in the developing world and elsewhere.     

The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study

ObjectiveTo assess the function of the new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees and to highlight areas where improvement is still needed.DesignProspectively collected data from a multicentre study was examined with respect to the ethics review process. Administrative, financial, and time elements of the review process were audited.SettingA single multicentre research ethics committee and 125 local ethics committees from six regions of England.ResultsOnly 40% of local ethics committees considered our study in the manner specified in the 1998 directive. Less than a third of committees replied within the 21 day period stipulated, although committees acting by executive subcommittee replied more quickly than those not acting by executive subcommittee. There was a tendency for executive subcommittees to approve studies in a shorter time. Local ethics committees asked for a large number of non-local changes to the application. The financial cost of applying to multiple ethics committees remains high, mainly because multiple copies of research applications are being requested.ConclusionsThe new system of approval by multicentre research ethics committee for multicentre studies was introduced to reduce administrative costs, speed up the process of reviews by multiple research ethics committees, and standardise the conclusions of the local research ethics committees. Since its introduction an improvement has been seen, but the system is not yet universally functioning as intended. Ethics review still remains a hindrance to the financial resources and commencement of national studies. We strongly support the structure of review by multicentre research ethics committees but suggest that the system has yet to achieve its aims.     

"Walking along beside the researcher": how Canadian REBs/IRBs are responding to the needs of community-based participatory research

Research ethics boards and institutional review boards (REBs/IRBs) have been criticized for relying on conceptions of research that privilege biomedical, clinical, and experimental designs, and for penalizing research that deviates from this model. Studies that use a community-based participatory research (CBPR) design have been identified as particularly challenging to navigate through existing ethics review frameworks. However, the voices of REB/IRB members and staff have been largely absent in this debate. The objective of this article is to explore the perspectives of members of Canadian university-based REBs/IRBs regarding their capacity to review CBPR protocols. We present findings from interviews with 24 Canadian REB/IRB members, staff, and other key informants. Participants were asked to describe and contrast their experiences reviewing studies using CBPR and mainstream approaches. Contrary to the perception that REBs/IRBs are inflexible and unresponsive, participants described their attempts to dialogue and negotiate with researchers and to provide guidance. Overall, these Canadian REBs/IRBs demonstrated a more complex understanding of CBPR than is typically characterized in the literature. Finally, we situate our findings within literature on relational ethics and explore the possibility of researchers and REBs/IRBs working collaboratively to find solutions to unique ethical tensions in CBPR.     

Barriers and challenges in clinical ethics consultations: the experiences of nine clinical ethics committees

Clinical ethics committees have recently been established in nearly all Norwegian hospital trusts. One important task for these committees is clinical ethics consultations. This qualitative study explores significant barriers confronting the ethics committees in providing such consultation services. The interviews with the committees indicate that there is a substantial need for clinical ethics support services and, in general, the committee members expressed a great deal of enthusiasm for the committee work. They also reported, however, that tendencies to evade moral disagreement, conflict, and 'outsiders' are common in the hospitals. Sometimes even the committees comply with some of these tendencies. The committees agree that there is a need to improve their routines and procedures, clarify the committees' profile and field of responsibility, to make the committees well-known, to secure adequate operating conditions, and to develop organizational integration and support. Various strategies to meet these challenges on a local, regional or national level are also explored in this paper.     

Reviewing HIV‐Related Research in Emerging Economies: The Role of Government Reviewing Agencies

Little research has explored the possible effects of government institutions in emerging economies on ethical reviews of multinational research. We conducted semi‐structured, in‐depth telephone interviews with 15 researchers, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) personnel, and a government agency member involved in multinational HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) research in emerging economies. Ministries of Health (MOH) or other government agencies often play pivotal roles as facilitators or barriers in the research ethics approval process. Government agency RECs reviewing protocols may face particular challenges, as they can lack resources, be poorly organized, have inconsistent review processes and limited expertise, and use differing definitions of national interests, including upholding national reputation and avoiding potential exploitation and stigma of the country's population. The MOH/governmental review body may be affected by power dynamics and politics in study reviews; may consider issues both related and unrelated to research ethics as understood elsewhere; and may prioritize particular diseases, treatments, or interventions over other topics/types of research. Poor communication and deeply‐rooted tensions may exist between sponsor and host countries, impeding optimal interactions and reviews. Investigators must understand and plan for the potential effects of governmental agencies on multinational collaborative research, including preserving adequate time for agency review, and contacting these agencies beforehand to address issues that may arise. Better understanding of these issues can aid and advance appropriate global scientific collaboration.     

Clinical ethics committee.

An informal clinical ethics committee was set up to advise on ethical problems in prenatal diagnosis in Leeds. It was used twice in six months but was not called on again in the subsequent year, and we describe this experience. In North America similar committees are often used to advise on clinical moral dilemmas, and we review the published evidence from there and discuss some of the advantages and problems. Our committee''s advice may have altered clinicians'' actions considerably, but perhaps doctors in Britain are not yet ready to surrender this aspect of clinical autonomy.     

Challenges faced by research ethics committees in El Salvador: results from a focus group study

Objective:  To identify perceived barriers to capacity building for local research ethics oversight in El Salvador, and to set an agenda for international collaborative capacity building.
Methods:  Focus groups were formed in El Salvador which included 17 local clinical investigators and members of newly formed research ethics committees. Information about the proposed research was presented to participants during an international bioethics colloquium sponsored and organized by the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in collaboration with the National Ethics Committee of El Salvador and the University of El Salvador. Interviews with the focus group participants were qualitatively analyzed.
Results:  Participants expressed the need to tailor the informed consent process and documentation to the local culture; for example, allowing family members to participate in decision-making, and employing shorter consent forms. Participants indicated that economic barriers often impede efforts in local capacity building. Participants valued international collaboration for mutual capacity building in research ethics oversight.
Conclusions:  Research ethics committees in El Salvador possess a basic knowledge of locally relevant ethical principles, though they need more training to optimize the application of bioethical principles and models to their particular contexts. Challenges increase the value of collaborative exchanges with ethics committee members in the United States. Further research on facilitating communication between host country and sponsor country ethics committees can maximize local research ethics expertise, and thus raise the standard of protecting human participants involved in international research.     

The Selection of Medical Students in Western Canada

The methods employed in the selection of medical students for the 1964-65 class of freshmen at the four Western medical schools are described and recommendations are made for improving the procedure. The structure and functions of the various selection committees varied from school to school but their prime purpose was the same—the selection of “good students” who would later become “good physicians”. Not surprisingly, academic achievement and confidence in estimating this ranked highest in importance, and while non-intellectual characteristics ranked almost as high, committee members had no confidence that they could evaluate these qualities.It is suggested that the ideal selection committee would be a “high-priority” committee consisting of six to eight members who would meet at least twice a year, have tenure of at least four years, be trained in interviewing applicants, consider Medical College Admission Test scores, review applications before each meeting, and establish research committees to investigate the students they choose.