Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 39, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 517-520

  Dyck, Murray ^a   Allen, Gary ^a  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BENEFICENCE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PERSONNEL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SOCIAL JUSTICE; STANDARD; TRUST;

BENEFICENCE; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL GOVERNANCE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ETHICAL ANALYSIS; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SOCIAL JUSTICE; TRUST;

EID: 84881552887     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100274     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Borenstein J. The expanding purview: Institutional Review Boards and the review of human subjects research. Account Res 2008;15:188-204.
2. Gold JL, Dewa CS. Institutional Review Boards and multisite studies in health services research: is there a better way? Health Serv Res 2005;40:291-307.
3. Byrne MM, Speckman J, Getz K, etal. Variability in the costs of Institutional Review Board oversight. Acad Med 2006;81:708-12.
4. Humphreys K, Trafton J, Wagner TH. The cost of Institutional Review Board procedures in multicenter research. Ann Int Med 2003;139:77.
5. Ravina B, Deuel L, Siderowf A, et al. Local Institution Review Board reviewof a multicenter trial: local costs without local context. Ann Neurol 2010; 67:258-60.
6. Barzilai G, Gallagher W, Harrington C, et al. The impact of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) on law and society researchers. Report of the Membership and Professional Issues Committee to the Board of Trustees of the Law and Society Association, 2007, July 24, 2007, Berlin. http://www.lawandsociety.org/LSA_MPIC_Report.pdf (accessed 13 Jul 2010).
7. Dziak K, Anderson R, Sevick MA, et al. Variations among Institutional Review Board reviews in a multisite health services research study. Health Serv Res 2005;40:279-90.
8. Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Ethics review roulette: what can we learn? BMJ 2004;328:121-2.
9. Israel M. Ethics and the governance of criminological research in Australia. Sydney, NSW: Report for the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2004.
10. Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P. Reforming Institutional Review Board policy: issues in implementation and field research. PS, 2008;July, 483-94.
11. Lincoln VS, Tierney WG. Qualitative research and Institutional Review Boards. Qual Inq 2005;10:219-34.
12. van den Hoonaard WC. Is research-ethics review a moral panic? CRSA/RCSA 2001;38:19-36.
13. Schrag ZM. Ethical imperialism: institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965-2009. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
14. Schweder R. Tuskegee re-examined. 2004. http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA34A.htm (accessed 16 Aug 2011).
15. Allen G. Getting beyond form filling: the role of institutional governance in human research ethics. J Acad Eth 2008;6:105-16.
16. Education Development Center. The Ellen Roche case: Research with healthy volunteers. Exploring bioethics. 2009. science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih9/bioethics/guide/pdf/Master_5-3.pdf (accessed 15 Jul 2010).
17. FDA. Alkis Togias, M.D./Johns Hopkins Asthma&Allergy Clinic, Baltimore, MD.: FDA 483 Inspectional Observations (Baltimore) 06/28/2001. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/ucm064082.htm (accessed 15 Jul 2010).
18. Greenberg DS. Science for sale: the perils, rewards, and delusions of campus capitalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
19. Williams PC. Success in spite of failure: why IRBs falter in reviewing risks and benefits. IRB: Eth Hum Res 1984;6:1-4.
20. Derbyshire S. Unethical committees. 2005. http://www.spiked-online.com/index. php?/site/article/625/. (accessed 16 Aug 2011).
21. Maskell NA, Jones EL, Davies RJO. Variations in experience in obtaining local ethical approval for participation in a multi-centre study. Quart JMed2003;96:305-7.
22. Kozanczyn C, Collins K, Fernandez CV. Offering results to research subjects: U.S. Institutional Review Board policy. Account Res 2005;14:255-67.
23. Tully J, Vinis N, Booy R, et al. The new system of review by multi-centre research ethics committees: prospective study. BMJ 2000;320:1179-82.
24. Whitney SN, Schneider CE. Viewpoint: a method to estimate the cost in lives of ethics board review of biomedical research. J Int Med 2010;269:392-406.
25. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17 187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1988;332:349-60.
26. Yawn BP, Graham DG, Bertram SL, et al. Practice-based research network studies and Institutional Review Boards: two new issues. J Am Bd Fam Med 2009;22:453-60.