Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability

BMJ

Volumn 313, Issue 7069, 1996, Pages 1390-

  Savulescu, Julian ^a   Chalmers, Iain ^b   Blunt, Jennifer ^b  

^a OXFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b UK Cochrane Centre   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE;

ACCOUNTABILITY; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL APPROACH/SOURCE; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; EVALUATION; GREAT BRITAIN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MISCONDUCT; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RISKS AND BENEFITS; STANDARDS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DISCLOSURE; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS COMMITTEES; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, MEDICAL; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RESEARCH; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; WITHHOLDING TREATMENT;

EID: 0029848062     PISSN: 09598138     EISSN: 14685833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.313.7069.1390     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Koopmans PP. Registration of drugs for treating cancer and HIV infection: a plea to carry out phase 3 trials before admission to the market. BMJ 1995; 310: 1305–6.
2. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: CIOMS, 1993.
3. Medical Research Council. Responsibility in investigations on human participants and material and on personal information. London: MRC, 1992.
4. Chalmers I, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews. London: BMJ Publishing, 1995.
5. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987; 104: 485–8.
6. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. JAMA 1992; 268: 240–8.
7. Oxman AD, Guyatt GD. The science of reviewing research. Ann NY Acad Sci 1993; 703: 125–34.
8. Assendelft WJJ, Koes BW, Knipschild PG, Bouter LM. The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation. JAMA 1995; 274: 1942–8.
9. Moher D, Olkin I. Meta-analysis of controlled trials: a concern for standards. JAMA 1995; 274: 1962–4.
10. Higher Education Funding Council for England, Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, Department of Education, Northern Ireland. 1996 Research assessment exercise: criteria for assessment. London: HEFC, 1995 (Ref RAE96 3/95).
11. Oxman A. Checklists for review articles. In: Chalmers I, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews. London: BMJ Publishing, 1995: 75–85.
12. Baum ML, Anish DS, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H, Fagerstrom RM. A survey of clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in colon surgery: evidence against further use of no-treatment controls. N Engl J Med 1981; 305: 795–9.
13. Lau J, Schmid CH, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 45–57.
14. Freedman B. Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1987; 9: 7–10.
15. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. New Engl J Med 1987; 371: 141–5.
16. Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 248–54.
17. Rothman KJ, Michels KB. The continuing unethical use of placebo controls. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 384–398.
18. Chalmers I, Herxheimer A. Drug costs and the scientific basis of therapy. In: Collier J, Bonn D, eds. Drug costs and treatment choices. London: Consumers' Association, 1993: 14–8.
19. Enkin M, Enkin E, Chalmers I, Hemminki E. Prophylactic antibiotics in association with caesarean section. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, eds. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989: 1246–69.
20. Chalmers I. Improving the quality and dissemination of reviews of clinical research. In: Lock S, ed. The future of medical journals: in commemoration of 150 years of the British Medical Journal. London: BMJ Publishing, 1991: 127–46.
21. Shapiro MF, Charrow RP. Scientific misconduct in investigational drug trials. N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 731–6.
22. Shapiro MF, Charrow RP. The role of data audits in detecting scientific misconduct. JAMA 1989; 261: 2505–11.
23. Denny WF. Use of placebo controls. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 61–2.
24. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. September 1989: section II.3.
25. Freedman B. Placebo-controlled trials and the logic of clinical purpose. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1990; 12: 1–6.
26. Weijer C, Elliott C. Down with placebolatry. New Scientist 1996; 149: 47.
27. Henry D, Hill S. Comparing treatments: comparison should be against active treatments rather than placebos. BMJ 1995; 310: 1279.
28. Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials [serial online] 1993; Apr 28: Doc No 50.
29. Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. JAMA 1994; 272: 158–62.
30. Simes J. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 1529–41.
31. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867–72.
32. Gotzsche PC. Reference bias in reports of drug trials. BMJ 1987; 295: 654–6.
33. Egger M, Davey Smith G. Misleading meta-analysis. BMJ 1995; 310: 752–4.
34. Jacobsen G, Hals A. Medical investigators' views about ethics and fraud in medical research. J Roy Coll Phys Lond 1995; 29: 405–9.
35. de Melker HE, Rosendaal FR, Vandenbroucke JP. Is publication bias a medical problem? Lancet 1993; 342: 621.
36. Vandenbroucke JP. De Cochrane Collaboration en “evidence-based medicine. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1995; 139: 1476–7.
37. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 1990; 263: 1405–8.
38. Moher D. Publication bias. Lancet 1993; 342: 1116.
39. Pearn J. Publication: an ethical imperative. BMJ 1995; 310: 1313–5.
40. Pearn J, Chalmers I. Publish and be applauded. New Scientist 1996; Jan 6: 40.
41. Roberts J, Smith R. Publishing research sponsored by the tobacco industry. BMJ 1996; 312: 133–4.
42. Chalmers I. Publication bias. Lancet 1993; 342: 1116.
43. Herxheimer A. Clinical trials: two neglected ethical issues. J Med Ethics 1993; 19: 211-218.
44. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Human Services, 1995.
45. Oxman A, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH. Users' guide to the medical literature. JAMA 1993; 270: 2093–5.
46. Milne R, Chambers L. Assessing the scientific quality of review articles. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1993; 47: 169–70.
47. Milne R, Donald A, Chambers L. Piloting short workshops on the critical appraisal of reviews. Health Trends 1995; 27: 120–3.
48. Dickersin K. Why register clinical trials? Revisited. Controlled Clin Trials 1992; 13: 170–7.
49. Harlan W. Creating an NIH Clinical Trials Registry: a user-friendly approach to health care. JAMA 1994; 271: 1729.
50. Chalmers I, Gray JAM, Sheldon T. Handling scientific fraud: prospective registration of health care research would help. BMJ 1995; 311: 262.
51. Davey Smith G. Increasing the accessibility of data. BMJ 1996; 312: 1285–7.
52. Delamothe T. Whose data are they anyway? BMJ 1996; 312: 1241–2.
53. Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences. International guidelines for ethical review of epidemiological studies. Geneva: CIOMS, 1991.
54. Simpson J. Collecting the trial evidence. CF News 1996; Summer: 13.
55. Department of Health. Local research ethics committees. London: Department of Health, 1991 (HSG(91)5).
56. Bendall C. Standard operating procedures for local research ethics committees. London: McKenna and Co, 1994.
57. Weijer C, Shapiro S, Fuks A, Glass KC, Strutkowska M. Monitoring clinical research: an obligation unfulfilled. Can Med Assoc J 1995; 152: 1973–80.
58. National Council on Bioethics in Human Research. Protecting and promoting the human research subject: a review of the function of research ethics boards in Canadian facilities of medicine. NCBHR Communique 1995; 6: 3–32.
59. McNeill PM. The ethics and politics of human experimentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
60. Medical Research Council of Canada. Guidelines on research involving human subjects. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 1987: 49.
61. De Mets DL, Meinert CL. Data integrity. Controlled Clin Trials 1991; 127: 53–60.
62. Riordan FAI, Thompson APJ. How to get patients' consent to enter clinical trials. BMJ 1996; 312: 185–6.
63. Vitamins, neural tube defects, and ethics committees. Lancet 1980; i: 1061–2.
64. Gilbert C, Fulford KWM, Parker C. Diversity of practice of district ethics committees. BMJ 1989; 299: 1437–9.
65. Alberti KGMM. Local research ethics committees. BMJ 1995; 311: 639–40.
66. Middle C, Johnson A, Petty T, Sims L, Macfarlane A. Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience. BMJ 1995; 311: 659–60.
67. Garfield P. Cross district comparison of applications of research ethics committees. BMJ 1995; 311: 660–1.
68. While A. Ethics committees: impediments to research or guardians of ethical standards? BMJ 1995; 311: 661.
69. Chalmers I, Grant A. Salutary lessons from the Collaborative Eclampsia Trial. Evidence-Based Medicine. 1996; Jan/Feb: 39–40.
70. Rachels J. Active and passive euthanasia. N Engl J Med 1975; 292: 78–80.
71. Beauchamp TL. A reply to Rachels on active and passive euthanasia. In: Beauchamp TL, Perlin S, eds. Ethical issues in death and dying. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1978: 246–58.
72. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press 1994: 196–200.
73. Steinbock B, ed. Killing and letting die. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980.
74. House of Lords. Report of the select committee on medical ethics. London: HMSO, 1994: 19–20. (Accepted 19 September 1996)