Centralized and non-centralized ethics review: A five nation study

Accountability in Research

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 47-74

  Fitzgerald, Maureen H ^a   Phillips, Paul A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Centralized research ethics review; Ethics committees; Ethics review administration; IRBs; Multisite review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CANADA; CLINICAL TRIAL; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; ETHICS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEW ZEALAND; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CLINICAL TRIALS; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; GREAT BRITAIN; INTERNATIONALITY; MULTICENTER STUDIES; NEW ZEALAND; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33746554456     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989620600588944     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Ad Hoc Advisory Group. (2005). Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees. London: Crown Copyright. Available at http://www.dh.gov.uk.
2. American Association of University Professors. (2001). Protecting human beings: Institutional review boards and social science research. Washington, DC, American Association of University Professors. Available at http://www.aaup.org/irbdoc.htm.
3. Bell, J., Whiton, J., and Connelly, S. (1998). Evaluation of NIH implementation of Section 491 of the Public Health Service Act, mandating a program of protection for research subjects. Report prepared under a National Institutes of Health Contract, N01-OD-2-2109. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
4. Blunt, J., Savulescu, J., and Watson, A. J. M. (1998). Meeting the challenges facing research ethics committees: Some practical suggestions, British Med J, 316: 58-61.
5. Cassell, J., and Wax, M. L. (eds.). (1980). Special issue of the Journal of Social Problems, 27.
6. Center for Advanced Study Project Steering Commitee. (2005). The Illinois White Paper: Improving the system for protecting human subjects: Counteracting IRB "Mission Creep". Urbana, IL: College of law, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Available at http://www.law.uiuc.edu/conferences/whitepaper.
7. Dodds, S. (2002). Is the Australian HREC system sustainable? Monash Bioethics Review, 21(3): 43-48.
8. Dolan, B. (1999). The impact of local research ethics committees on the development of nursing knowledge, J Advanced Nursing, 30(5): 1009-1010.
9. Emanuel, E. J., Wood, A., Fleischman, A., Bowen, A., Getz, K. A., Grady, C., Levine, C., Hammerschmidt, D. E., Faden, R., Eckenwiler, L., Muse, C. T., and Sugarman, J. (2004). Oversight of human participants research: Identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals, Ann Internal Med, 141: 282-291.
10. Fitzgerald, M. H. (1994). Negotiating human ethics committees in Australia, Soc Appl Anthropology Newsletter, 5(4): 3-5.
11. Fitzgerald, M. H. (2004). Big Basket or Mission Creep? Professional Ethics Report, XVII (2):1-3. Available at http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per.htm.
12. Fitzgerald, M. H., and Phillips, P. (2004). Ethics as Culture Project website. Available at http://www.ethicsproject.com.
13. Fitzgerald, M. H., and Yule, E. (2004). Open and closed committees, Monash Bio-ethics Review, 23(4): 35-49.
14. Glasziou, P., and Chalmers, I. (2004). Ethics review roulette: What can we learn? British Med J, 328: 121-122.
15. Goodman, N. W. (2004). Will the new rules for research ethics committees lead to better decisions? J Royal Soc Med, 97: 198-199.
16. Greenwood, J., Holmes, C., and Bidewell, J. (2001). Developing best practice guidelines for institutional ethics committees (IECs) in Greater Sydney: Mission impossible? Collegian: J Royal College of Nursing, Australia, 8(1): 8-13.
17. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee (SSHWC). (2004). Giving voice to the spectrum: Report of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee. Ottawa: Interagency Advisory Panel and Secretariat on Research Ethics. Available at http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/work-groups/sshwc.cfm.
18. Israel, M. (2004). Ethics and the governance of criminological research in Australia. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Attorney General's Department. Available at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_pub_alphalist.
19. Jacobs, F., and Zonnenberg, A. (2004). Tangible and Intangible Costs of Protecting Human Subjects: The Impact of the National Research Act of 1974 on University Research Activities. Education Policy Analysis Archives 12 (65). Retrieved 26 November 2004. Available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n65/.
20. Koski, G., Aungst, J., Kupersmith, J., Getz, K., and Rimoin, D. (2005). Cooperative research ethics review boards: A win-win solution? IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 27(3): 1-7.
21. McDonald, M. (2000a). The governance of health care research involving human subjects: Reflections on ethical policy for science research., Transactions, 2: 49-67.
22. McDonald, M. (ed.). (2000b). The governance of health research involving human subjects (HRIHS). Ottawa, Ontario: Law Commission of Canada.
23. Mitchell, T., and Fletcher, I. (1998). Stating the case for nursing research ethics committees: A discussion paper, Nurse Education Today, 18: 133-137.
24. National Council on Bioethics in Human Research (NCBHR). (1995). Protecting and promoting the human research subject: A review of the function of research ethics boards in Canadian faculties of medicine, NCBHR Communi-qué, 6(1): 3-32.
25. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, and Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee. (2004). Review of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans: First consultation draft. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. Available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/issues/index.htm.
26. Pattison, J., and Stacey, T. (2004). Research bureaucracy in the United Kingdom., British Med J, 329: 622.
27. Pearn, J. H. (1999). The realities of ethical review of research in Australia, MJA, 171: 38-39.
28. Pentz, R. (2004). Centralised IRBs, The Lancet Oncology, 5: 327-328.
29. Roberts, L. W. (1999). Ethical dimensions of psychiatric research: A constructive, criterion-based approach to protocol preparation. The Research Protocol Ethics Assessment Tool (RePEAT), Biological Psychiatry, 46: 1106-1119.
30. Shamoo, A. E. (2001). Adverse events reporting - the tip of an iceberg, Accountability in Research, 8: 197-218.
31. Sieber, J. E. (ed.). (1982). The ethics of social research: Fieldwork, regulation, and publication. New York: Springer-Verlag.
32. Sugarman, J., Getz, K., Speckman, J. L., Byrne, M. M., Gerson, J., and Emanuel, E. J. (2005). The cost of institutional review boards in academic medical centers, N Engl J Med, 352(17): 1825-1827.
33. Tully, J., Ninis, N., Booy, R., and Viner, R. (2000). The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: Prospective study, British Med J, 320: 1179-1182.
34. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Good Clinical Practice Program Office of the Commissioner OC), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), and Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). (2005). Guidance for Industry: Using a Centralized IRB Review Process in Multicenter Clinical Trials. Rockville, MD: Office of Training and Communication, Division of Drug Information, HFD-240, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration.
35. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. (1998). Institutional review boards: A time for reform. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services.
36. Wagner, T. H., Cruz, A. M., and Chadwick, G. L. (2004). Economies of scale in Institutional Review Boards, Medical Care, 42(8): 817-823.
37. Wainwright, P., and Saunders, J. (2004). What are local issues? The problem of the local review of research, J Med Ethics, 30: 313-317.
38. Walsh, M. K., McNeill, J. J., and Breen, K. J. (2005). Improving the governance of health research, M J A, 182(9): 468-471.
39. Wax, M. L., and Cassell, J. (eds.). (1979). Federal regulations: Ethical issues and social research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
40. Whiteman, D. C., Webb, P. M., Purdie, D. M., and Green, A. C. (2003). National ethics committee urgently needed, MJA, 178: 187.
41. Wood, A., Grady, C., and Emanuel, E. J. (2004). Regional ethics organizations for protection of human research participants, Nature Medicine, 10(12): 1283-1288.