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.     

What is wrong with ethics review,the impact on teaching anthropology,and how to fix it: results of an empirical study

There is no empirical evidence that ethics review protects anthropologists’ research participants, but there is ample evidence that it is stifling research agendas and reshaping how we teach anthropological research methods, entrenching a positivist, clinical model of what constitutes research. This paper examines the impact of ethics review on student research in Australia, based on interviews conducted at 14 Australian universities. The data clearly show that the risks posed by student research are minor, and vastly overestimated by ethics committees. To avoid problems with ethics committees, we shepherd students into undertaking low‐risk, and consequently low‐impact, research. Many departments are abandoning research‐led teaching altogether because of the obstacle of ethics review. One solution would be to locate ethics discussions in disciplines and departments, radically restructuring the encounter to reconceptualise it as collegial debate about ethics dilemmas rather than ‘ethics review’.     

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.     

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.     

The Role of a Hospital Ethics Consultation Service in Decision-Making for Unrepresented Patients

Despite increased calls for hospital ethics committees to serve as default decision-makers about life-sustaining treatment (LST) for unrepresented patients who lack decision-making capacity or a surrogate decision-maker and whose wishes regarding medical care are not known, little is known about how committees currently function in these cases. This was a retrospective cohort study of all ethics committee consultations involving decision-making about LST for unrepresented patients at a large academic hospital from 2007 to 2013. There were 310 ethics committee consultations, twenty-five (8.1 per cent) of which involved unrepresented patients. In thirteen (52.0 per cent) cases, the ethics consultants evaluated a possible substitute decision-maker identified by social workers and/or case managers. In the remaining cases, the ethics consultants worked with the medical team to contact previous healthcare professionals to provide substituted judgement, found prior advance care planning documents, or identified the patient’s best interest as the decision-making standard. In the majority of cases, the final decision was to limit or withdraw LST (72 per cent) or to change code status to Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate (12 per cent). Substitute decision-makers who had been evaluated through the ethics consultation process and who made the final decision alone were more likely to continue LST than cases in which physicians made the final decision (50 per cent vs 6.3 per cent, p = 0.04). In our centre, the primary role of ethics consultants in decision-making for unrepresented patients is to identify appropriate decision-making standards. In the absence of other data suggesting that ethics committees, as currently constituted, are ready to serve as substitute decision-makers for unrepresented patients, caution is necessary before designating these committees as default decision-makers.     

The roles and functions of hospital-based ethics committees.

Ethics committees ar becoming much more visible on the Canadian health care scene. They range from research-ethics committees that decide whether research projects are ethically sound to case-oriented committees that look at particular issues and give advice. Eike-Henner Kluge says that ethics committees are useful tools, but only when they are appropriately constituted and function in a professional manner. Otherwise, he warns, they become either useless or a liability.     

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.     

Community Members' Engagement with and Involvement in Genomic Research: Lessons to Learn from the Field

In this paper, we describe the potential role laypersons on ethics committees can play in ensuring community concerns are addressed in the design and implementation of genomic research. We draw inferences from the outcome of an empirical study of the impact of training of laypersons to address community engagement issues in ethics review of research protocol. While this paper does not advocate a particular solution, it describes the importance of community engagement in genomic research, the current limitations there are in engaging communities in the design of these research projects and how communities can be indirectly engaged in the design and implementation of genomic research through the engagement of laypersons on ethics committees. However, to ensure that these laypersons can play this role, their capacity needs to be built to play this role appropriately. There is evidence to show that where resources are invested in building the capacity of laypersons to play their role as community ‘watchdogs’ in research, they play this role aptly. Community engagement is important in genomic research as genomic researchers will increasingly require community perspectives in critical ethics decision making.     

The rise of research ethics committees in Western Europe: some concomitant problems

The rise of research ethics committees in Western Europe has accelerated since 1975 when the World Medical Association recommended that protocols for experiments involving human subjects be submitted to independent committees for consideration, comment, and guidance. This article describes the numbers, types, composition, function, authority, and problems of institutional, regional, and national research ethics committees in the Netherlands, Great Britain, West Germany, France, Switzerland, and Sweden. Among the problems are lack of authority to require ethical review, underrepresentation of nonmedical members, inconsistencies in definitions of and standards for human experimentation, and nonconsideration of the rights of investigators as well as subjects. The author urges legislation to strengthen the self regulating mechanism of research ethics committees.     

Two models of ethics committees

A distinction is made between two models of ethics committees. According to the Mirror Model, ethics committees ought to reflect the values of society. The Critical Model says committees are to critically examine these standards rather than merely reflect them. It is argued that the Critical Model should be accepted because a society's ethical standards can be mistaken and a society that has Critical rather than merely Mirror ethics committees is more likely to have such mistakes revealed. Some implications of the Critical Model are discussed.     

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。     

Who should Decide for the Unrepresented?

Unrepresented patients lack the capacity to make medical decisions for themselves, have no clear documentation of preferences for medical treatment, and have no surrogate decision maker or obvious candidate for that role. There is no consensus about who should serve as the decision maker for these patients, particularly regarding whether to continue or to limit life‐sustaining treatment. Several authors have argued that ethics committees should play this role rather than the patient's treating physician, a common current default. We argue that concerns about the adequacy of physicians as surrogates are either empirically unfounded or apply equally to ethics committees. We suggest that physicians should be the primary decision maker for the unrepresented because of their fiduciary duties toward their patients. As part of the process of fulfilling these duties, they should seek the advice of third parties such as ethic committees; but final end‐of‐life decision‐making for the unrepresented should rest with the treating physician.     

GENDER AND ETHICS COMMITTEES: WHERE’S THE ‘DIFFERENT VOICE’?

Prominent international and national ethics commissions such as the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee rarely achieve anything remotely resembling gender equality, although local research and clinical ethics committees are somewhat more egalitarian. Under‐representation of women is particularly troubling when the subject matter of modern bioethics so disproportionately concerns women’s bodies, and when such committees claim to derive ‘universal’ standards. Are women missing from many ethics committees because of relatively straightforward, if discriminatory, demographic factors? Or are the methods of analysis and styles of ethics to which these bodies are committed somehow ‘anti‐female’? It has been argued, for example, that there is a ‘different voice’ in ethical reasoning, not confined to women but more representative of female experience. Similarly, some feminist writers, such as Evelyn Fox Keller and Donna Haraway, have asked difficult epistemological questions about the dominant ‘masculine paradigm’ in science. Perhaps the dominant paradigm in ethics committee deliberation is similarly gendered? This article provides a preliminary survey of women’s representation on ethics committees in eastern and western Europe, a critical analysis of the supposed ‘masculinism’ of the principlist approach, and a case example in which a ‘different voice’ did indeed make a difference.     

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.     

Assessment of the ethical review process in Sudan

The ethical review process is an important component of contemporary health research worldwide. Sudan started an ethical review process rather late in comparison with other countries. In this study, we evaluate the structure and functions of existing ethics review committees. We also explore the knowledge and attitudes of Sudanese researchers toward the ethical review process and their experience with existing ethics review committees. There are four ethics review committees in the country; these committees have no institutional regulations to govern their functions. Furthermore, Sudan also lacks national guidelines. Ethical reviews are carried out primarily for studies seeking international funding and are almost always governed by the funding agencies' requirements. Nearly half of respondents (46.3%) knew about the existence of research ethics committees in Sudan. Researchers reported a variety of experiences with the ethical review process; most of them were unable to define 'ethics committee'.     

An Australian Based Study on the Readability of HIV/AIDS and Type 2 Diabetes Clinical Trial Informed Consent Documents

The aims of this study were to measure the readability of Australian based informed consent documents and determine whether informed consent readability guidelines have been established by Australian human research ethics committees (HRECs). A total of 20 informed consent documents, 10 HIV/AIDS and 10 type 2 diabetes, were measured for readability using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Gunning Fog Index (Fog). Published guidelines and policy statements of the two local HREC who approved the 20 clinical trials under study where examined to identify whether they had any formal policies/guidelines on the readability of informed consent documents. The two HRECs were contacted via e-mail to also determine whether they utilised any informal readability standards or “rules of thumb” that may not have been mentioned in the published documents. The HIV/AIDS and type 2 diabetes informed consent documents were, on average, written at a grade 13 reading level. Formal readability standards had not been established by the two local HRECs, however, they did verify the use of informal rules for assessing readability of informed consent documents. Based on Australian literacy data, the majority of informed consent documents were written well beyond the reading ability of many Australians. Unreadable informed consent documents may result in patients rejecting trial participation altogether or conversely may result in their participating in a trial with inadequate consent. Therefore, a step toward reducing the complexity of informed consent documents may be to implement objective readability assessments into the human research ethics application and review process.     

Informed Consent in Health Research: Challenges and Barriers in Low‐and Middle‐Income Countries with Specific Reference to Nepal

Obtaining ‘informed consent’ from every individual participant involved in health research is a mandatory ethical practice. Informed consent is a process whereby potential participants are genuinely informed about their role, risk and rights before they are enrolled in the study. Thus, ethics committees in most countries require ‘informed consent form’ as part of an ethics application which is reviewed before granting research ethics approval. Despite a significant increase in health research activity in low‐and middle‐income countries (LMICs) in recent years, only limited work has been done to address ethical concerns. Most ethics committees in LMICs lack the authority and/or the capacity to monitor research in the field. This is important since not all research, particularly in LMICs region, complies with ethical principles, sometimes this is inadvertently or due to a lack of awareness of their importance in assuring proper research governance. With several examples from Nepal, this paper reflects on the steps required to obtain informed consents and highlights some of the major challenges and barriers to seeking informed consent from research participants. At the end of this paper, we also offer some recommendations around how can we can promote and implement optimal informed consent taking process. We believe that paper is useful for researchers and members of ethical review boards in highlighting key issues around informed consent.     

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.     

On the Alleged Right to Participate in High‐Risk Research

Reigning regulatory frameworks for biomedical research impose on researchers and research ethics committees an obligation to protect research participants from risks that are unnecessary, disproportionate to potential research benefits, and non‐minimized. Where the research has no potential to produce results of direct benefit to the subjects and the subjects are unable to give consent, these requirements are strengthened by an additional condition, that risks should not exceed a certain minimal threshold. In this article, I address the question of whether there should be limits of permissible risks in non‐therapeutic research involving competent and healthy subjects. Some commentators argue that competent and informed individuals should have a right to participate even in extremely risky research and that research ethics committees should never reject studies because they are too dangerous. To use David Shaw's expression, competent volunteers should have ‘a right to participate in high‐risk research’. I argue that this idea is ill‐founded, as it does not take into account the social mission and complex collaborative nature of research practice as well as the inequity of power between researchers and subjects. Imposition of limits on permissible risks for healthy volunteers is justified by the need to protect research enterprise and the need to protect the weaker party, namely the subjects. Also, I suggest that the best way to set boundaries on research risks is to leave the judgment of risk acceptability to research ethics committees.