This is the third in a series of five papers on the role, remit and function of research ethics committees which are intended to provide for REC members a broad understanding of the most important issues in research ethics and governance. This paper examines the role of ethics committees in balancing the social value of the research it reviews against the risks it imposes on those who take part. The ethics committee's role in assessing the social value of research goes well beyond checking its scientific validity and this assessment may affect the risks ethics committees are prepared to ask of subjects not only for their own potential personal interests but importantly and inevitably in the name of science. However, their function is importantly restricted by the wider regulatory and governance environment in which they work.
References
1.
Article 3: Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4th April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use.
2.
CaplanALEngelhardtHTJr. (eds), Concepts of health and disease: interdisciplinary perspectives. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981.
3.
LopezA. Health and health-research priorities: has WHO got it right?Lancet2008; 372(9649): 1525–1527.
4.
UK Clinical Research Collaboration. UK health research analysis. London: UKCRC, 2006.
5.
CooksenRDolanP. Priority setting in health care. Of course we should ask the tax payer. BMJ2000; Vol 321: 954.
Medical research: What's it worth? Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK. Health Economic Research Group. Office of Health Economics & RAND Europe. London: UK Evaluation Forum, 2008.
8.
Increasing the economic impact of Research Councils. Research Council Economic Impact Group. London: Department of Trade & Industry; 2006. Available from: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file32802.pdf (Accessed on 4 December 2009).
9.
EliasAZerhouni. Translational and clinical science — time for a new vision. New Engl J Med2005; 353(15): 1621–1623.
10.
DiMasiJA. Risks in new drug development: approval success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther2001; 69: 297–307.
11.
Depression: management of depression in primary and secondary care. Clinical practice guideline No 23. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. London: NICE, 2004. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=235213.
12.
HughesDATunnageBYeoST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding?Q J Med2005; 98: 829–836.
Black Report. Inequalities in Health. Report of a research working group: DHSS, 1980.
16.
WinnieWS MakRitaW LawAlvidrezJenniferPérez-StableEliseo J. Gender and ethnic diversity in NIMH-funded clinical trials: review of a decade of published research administration and policy in mental health and mental health services. Research2007; 34(6): 497–503.
17.
Research governance framework for health and social care (2nd ed). Section 2.2.7. Department of Health: HM Stationary Office, 2005.
18.
R (on the application of Ann Marie Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 392.
19.
Research governance framework for health and social care (2nd ed). Section 2.2.6. Department of Health: HM Stationary Office, 2005.
20.
Department of Health Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees. Op cit.
21.
ArnesonR. Paternalism, utility and fairness. Reprinted in DworkinG (ed) Mill's on liberty: critical essays. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997.
22.
EdwardsSJL. Restricting new treatments, inducements, and research participation. Bioethics2006; 20(2): 77–91.
23.
EdwardsSJL. Research participation and the right to withdraw. Bioethics2005; 19(2): 112–130.
