The Multidimensional Nature of Research Ethics: Letters Issued by a French Research Ethics Committee Included Similar Proportions of Ethical and Scientific Queries

T. Haaser, V. Bouteloup, D. Berdaï, M. Saux
{"title":"The Multidimensional Nature of Research Ethics: Letters Issued by a French Research Ethics Committee Included Similar Proportions of Ethical and Scientific Queries","authors":"T. Haaser, V. Bouteloup, D. Berdaï, M. Saux","doi":"10.1177/15562646221093218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Debate is ongoing concerning the activities and functioning of Research Ethics Committees (REC), especially a possible science-or-ethics dichotomy in research ethics review. We retrospectively analyzed 145 letters issued by a French REC over 18 months. All queries were classified in three levels: qualification (definition of the problem), category (aggregation of broader topics) and finally fields (ethical, scientific, or administrative). Overall, 971 queries were identified, of which 407 (42%), 379 (39%), and 135 (14%) were deemed ethical, scientific, and administrative queries, respectively. The most frequent concern was about participants’ information. The main influencing factor was the profession of the reporting readers—scientific queries were more frequently raised by a methodologist, whereas ethical queries were more frequently raised by an ethicist. These results indicate that research ethics review is a multidimensional task that should be considered a collaborative effort.","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221093218","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Debate is ongoing concerning the activities and functioning of Research Ethics Committees (REC), especially a possible science-or-ethics dichotomy in research ethics review. We retrospectively analyzed 145 letters issued by a French REC over 18 months. All queries were classified in three levels: qualification (definition of the problem), category (aggregation of broader topics) and finally fields (ethical, scientific, or administrative). Overall, 971 queries were identified, of which 407 (42%), 379 (39%), and 135 (14%) were deemed ethical, scientific, and administrative queries, respectively. The most frequent concern was about participants’ information. The main influencing factor was the profession of the reporting readers—scientific queries were more frequently raised by a methodologist, whereas ethical queries were more frequently raised by an ethicist. These results indicate that research ethics review is a multidimensional task that should be considered a collaborative effort.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究伦理的多维性质:法国研究伦理委员会发布的信件包括相似比例的伦理和科学问题
关于研究伦理委员会(REC)的活动和运作,特别是研究伦理审查中可能存在的科学或伦理二分法,目前正在进行辩论。我们回顾性分析了法国REC在18个月内发出的145封信件。所有问题都分为三个级别:资格(问题的定义)、类别(更广泛主题的集合),最后是领域(伦理、科学或行政)。总体而言,共发现971个查询,其中407个(42%)、379个(39%)和135个(14%)分别被视为道德、科学和行政查询。最常见的问题是参与者的信息。主要的影响因素是报道读者的职业——科学问题更频繁地由方法学家提出,而伦理问题更经常地由伦理学家提出。这些结果表明,研究伦理审查是一项多层面的任务,应该被视为一项合作努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Understanding of Key Considerations for Effective Community Engagement in Genetics and Genomics Research: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Research Ethics Committee Members and National Research Regulators in a low Resource Setting. Vulnerable Research Participant Policies at U.S. Academic Institutions. Considerations for the Design of Informed Consent in Digital Health Research: Participant Perspectives. Public Perspectives on Consent for and Governance of Biobanking in Japan. Comparison of Instructions to Authors and Reporting of Ethics Components in Selected African Biomedical Journals: 2008 and 2017.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1