Research Ethics Board (REB) Members’ Preparation for, and Perceived Knowledge of Research Ethics

被引:5
作者
Egan R. [1 ]
Stockley D. [1 ]
Lam C.Y. [2 ]
Kinderman L. [2 ]
Youmans A.S. [2 ]
机构
[1] Office of Health Sciences Education, Queen’s University, 78 Barrie Street, 2nd and 3rd floor, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Kingston
[2] Queen’s University, Ontario, Kingston
基金
加拿大健康研究院; 加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
Research ethics; TCPS; 2;
D O I
10.1007/s10805-016-9256-8
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) was first developed to establish a standard of practice in research ethics by the three federal agencies responsible for funding institutional research in Canada: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). In 2010, a second edition of the policy, known as the TCPS 2, was released with updated information and expanded coverage of research ethics issues. According to the TCPS 2, the Agencies’ mandate is “to promote research that is conducted according to the highest ethical standards,” and the TCPS 2 serves as a benchmark for this with respect for human dignity as its underlying value. Research institutions receiving Agency funding are to comply with this policy statement by forming Research Ethics Boards (REBs) to review all research involving human participants. The intention behind this review requirement is to provide a proportionate assessment of the benefit-to-risk ratio of the research, and in that process, to safeguard “respect for persons”, express a “concern for welfare”, and uphold “justice” (CIHR, SSHRC, NSERC 2010, p. 8). Research may not proceed until ethics approval is granted by an institution’s REB. The current study evaluates REB members’ perspectives on their knowledge of research ethics, and juxtaposes these perceptions with those of researchers. Specifically, we are interested in the extent to which REB members with less experience read the TCPS 2, and whether those with less experience have decreased confidence in their ethics knowledge. © 2016, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
引用
收藏
页码:191 / 197
页数:6
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
Allen G., Getting beyond form filling: the role of institutional governance in human research ethics, Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, pp. 105-116, (2008)
[2]  
and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, (2010)
[3]  
Davey K.G., Reflections on my experience in human research ethics, Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, pp. 27-31, (2009)
[4]  
De Vries R.G., Forsberg C., What do IRBs look like? what kind of support do they receive?, Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 9, pp. 199-216, (2002)
[5]  
De Vries R.G., Anderson M.S., Martinson B.C., Normal misbehaviour: scientists talk about the ethics of research, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, pp. 43-50, (2006)
[6]  
Guillemin M., Gillam L., Rosenthal D., Bolitho A., Resources employed by health researchers to ensure ethical research practice, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5, pp. 21-34, (2010)
[7]  
Guillemin M., Gillam L., Rosenthal D., Bolitho A., Human research ethics committees: examining their roles and responsibilities, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7, pp. 38-49, (2012)
[8]  
Hayes G.J., Hayes S.C., Dykstra T., A survey of institutional review boards: characteristics, policies, and procedures, IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 17, pp. 1-6, (1995)
[9]  
Jennings S.L.M., Two models of social science research ethics review, Research Ethics Review, 6, pp. 86-90, (2010)
[10]  
Lidz C.W., Gaverich S., What the ANPRM missed: additional needs for IRB reform, The Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 41, pp. 390-396, (2013)