Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
File version
Author(s)
Dyck, Murray
Allen, Gary
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
2013
Size
102823 bytes
File type(s)
application/pdf
Location
License
Abstract

Review boards responsible for vetting the ethical conduct of research have been criticised for their costliness, unreliability and inappropriate standards when evaluating some non-medical research, but the basic value of mandatory ethical review has not been questioned. When the standards that review boards use to evaluate research proposals are applied to review board practices, it is clear that review boards do not respect researchers or each other, lack merit and integrity, are not just and are not beneficent. The few benefits of mandatory ethical review come at a much greater, but mainly hidden, social cost. It is time that responsibility for the ethical conduct of research is clearly transferred to researchers, except possibly in that small proportion of cases where prospective research participants may be so intrinsically vulnerable that their well-being may need to be overseen.

Journal Title
Journal of Medical Ethics
Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume
39
Issue
8
Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
Publisher link
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement
© The Author(s) 2013. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. For information about this journal please refer to the journal’s website or contact the authors.
Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject
Other health sciences
Applied ethics
Persistent link to this record
Citation