Standards for research ethics committees: purpose, problems and the possibilities of other approaches

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 382-383

  Davies, H ^a   Wells, F ^a   Czarkowski, M ^a  

^a European Forum for Good Clinical Practice   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONFERENCE PAPER; ETHICS; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMAN; POLAND; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; STANDARD;

CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMANS; POLAND;

EID: 67249161409     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.027722     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. European Forum for Good Clinical Practice. The procedure for the ethical review of protocols for clinical research in the European Union International. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine 2007;21:1-113.
2. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm (accessed Sept 2008).
3. Koski G. Beyond compliance... is it too much to ask?IRB 2003;25:5-6.
4. Warlow C. Over-regulation of clinical research: a threat to public health. Clin Med 2005;5:33-8.
5. Jamrozik J. Research ethics paperwork: what is the plot we seem to have lost? BMJ 2004;329:286-7.
6. Ward HJ, Simon N, Cousens SN, et al. Obstacles to conducting epidemiological research in the UK general population. BMJ 2004;329:277-9.
7. Chalmers I. Regulation of therapeutic research is compromising the interests of patients. International Journal of Pharmacological Medicine 2007;21:395.
8. Fost N, Levine RJ. The dysregulation of human subjects research. JAMA 2007;298:2196-8.
9. Baily MA. Harming through protection. N Engl J Med 2008;358:768-9.
10. Miller FG, Emmanuel EJ. Quality improvement research and informed consent. N Engl J Med 2008;358:765-7.
11. Coleman CH, Bouësseau MC. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? the neglected role of outcomes research. BMC Med Ethics 2008;9:6.
12. World Health Organization. Surveying and evaluating ethical review practice. Operational guidelines for ethics committees that review biomedical research. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002.
13. European Forum for Good Clinical Practice. European guidelines for auditing independent ethics committees. Belgium: European Forum for Good Clinical Practice, 2002.
14. Melsin E, Lavery JV, Sutherland HJ, et al. Judging the ethical merit of clinical trials. IRB 1994;16:6-10.
15. Shah S, Whittle A, Wilfond B, et al. How do IRBs apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research. JAMA 2004;291:476-82.
16. Dixon-Woods M, Angell E, Tarant C, et al. What do research ethics committees say about application to do cancer trials? Lancet Oncol 2008;9:700-1.
17. Dixon-Woods M, Angell E, Ashcroft R, et al. Written work: the social functions of research ethics committee letters. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:792-802.
18. Taylor HA. Moving beyond compliance: measuring ethical quality to enhance the oversight of human subjects research. IRB 2007;29:9-14.
19. Angell E, Sutton AJ, Windridge K, et al. Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison. J Med Ethics 2006;32:662.
20. Hyman DA. IRBs: is this the least bad we can do? Northwest Univ Law Review 2007;101:749.
21. Angell EL, Jackson CJ, Ashcroft RE, et al. Is inconsistency in research ethics committee decision making really a problem. Clin Ethics 2007;2:92-9.
22. Sayers GM. Should research ethics committees be told how to think? J Med Ethics 2007;33:39-42.
23. Davies H. Standards for research ethics committees: purpose, problems and possibilities. Research Ethics Review (in press).
24. Hedgecoe A. Research ethics review and the sociological research relationship. Sociology 2008;42:873-86.