Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?

Area of Science:

• Social Sciences
• Research Ethics
• Public Policy

Background:

• Ethical review boards (ERBs) are mandated to oversee research conduct.
• Criticisms include costliness, unreliability, and inappropriate standards, particularly for non-medical research.
• The fundamental value of mandatory ethical review has remained largely unquestioned.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the practices of ethical review boards.
• To assess whether review board operations align with the ethical standards they impose on researchers.
• To determine the overall social cost-benefit of mandatory ethical review.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of review board practices using established ethical standards for research proposals.
• Comparative assessment of review board performance against ethical principles (respect, merit, integrity, justice, beneficence).

Main Results:

• Review boards demonstrate a lack of respect for researchers and each other.
• Review board practices exhibit deficiencies in merit, integrity, justice, and beneficence.
• The benefits of mandatory ethical review are minimal compared to significant, often hidden, social costs.

Conclusions:

• Current ethical review board practices fall short of their own ethical standards.
• The mandatory nature of ethical review may impose an undue burden and cost.
• Responsibility for ethical research conduct should primarily rest with researchers, with exceptions for highly vulnerable populations.