Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Research ethics committees: differences and moral judgement.

Sarah J L Edwards1, Richard Ashcroft, Simon Kirchin

  • 1Centre for Ethics in Medicine, 73 St. Michael's Hill, University of Bristol, BS2 8BH, United Kingdom. Sarah.Edwards@bristol.ac.uk

Bioethics
|October 7, 2004
PubMed
Summary

Disagreements between Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are not always problematic. Some inconsistencies are acceptable and even desirable, challenging the push for complete harmonization in research ethics review.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Randomised controlled trial to measure effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a digital social intervention promoted by primary care clinicians to adults with asthma to improve asthma control: protocol.

BMJ open·2025
Same author

Equity and capacity to benefit from early access to medicines schemes.

International journal for equity in health·2025
Same author

Perceived coercion amongst healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Scientific reports·2025
Same author

Clinicians' experiences of obtaining informed consent for research and treatment: a nested qualitative study from Pakistan.

BMC medical ethics·2024
Same author

Considerations for prioritising clinical research using bacteriophage.

Essays in biochemistry·2024
Same author

An examination of the relationship between risk perceptions, cultural-religious beliefs and coping during COVID-19 pandemic control in South Asian countries: a systematic review.

BMC psychology·2024

Area of Science:

  • Bioethics
  • Medical Research Ethics
  • Regulatory Science

Background:

  • Efforts to harmonize Research Ethics Committees (RECs) judgments stem from concerns about moral problems caused by inconsistencies.
  • Some inconsistencies arise from irrationality, carelessness, or conflicts of interest and warrant reduction.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To examine arguments against the necessity of complete consistency among Research Ethics Committees.
  • To explore the ethical permissibility and potential desirability of variation in REC decision-making.

Main Methods:

  • Philosophical argumentation and ethical analysis.
  • Examination of three key arguments: the justice argument, the moral pluralism argument, and the due process argument.
  • Analysis of the relevance of the review process itself, not solely the outcome.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachBiomedical and Behavioral Research

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Differences in REC judgments may not conflict with justice for research participants.
  • The absence of a single, universally accessible moral truth complicates the pursuit of absolute consistency.
  • The procedural aspects of ethics review hold moral significance.

Conclusions:

  • Complete consistency among Research Ethics Committees is not always necessary or desirable.
  • A degree of variation in ethical review outcomes is largely inevitable and can be beneficial.
  • The focus should be on ensuring robust due process and addressing genuinely problematic inconsistencies.