The views of members of Local Research Ethics Committees, researchers and members of the public towards the roles and functions of LRECs.
Open Access
- 1 June 1997
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Journal of Medical Ethics
- Vol. 23 (3) , 186-190
- https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.23.3.186
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It can be argued that the ethical conduct of research involves achieving a balance between the rights and needs of three parties-potential research participants, society, and researchers. Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs) have a number of roles and functions in the research enterprise, but there have been some indications that LREC members, researchers and the public can have different views about these responsibilities. Any such differences are potential sources of disagreement and misunderstanding. OBJECTIVES: To compare the views of LREC members, researchers and the public towards the roles and functions of LRECs. DESIGN: A questionnaire that contained items concerned with a variety of such roles was distributed to general practice patients (as proxies for potential research participants), researchers and LREC members. FINDINGS: While general practice patients believed that the main function of LRECs is to ensure that research participants come to no harm, LREC members were more concerned with the protection of participants' rights. There was also some disagreement between members and researchers with regard to the consideration of proposals on the grounds of scientific merit. CONCLUSIONS: Local Research Ethics Committee members need to be aware of potential differences in views, that they ought to make their priorities clear, and that membership of LRECs ought to reflect the views of both researchers and potential research participants.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committeesBMJ, 1995
- Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experienceBMJ, 1995
- Local research ethics committeesBMJ, 1995
- Integrating Ethics with Symbolic Interactionism: The Case of OncologyQualitative Health Research, 1994
- Obstetricians' and midwives' contrasting perceptions of pregnancyJournal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 1993
- Therapeutic Misconceptions: When the Voices of Caring and Research Are Misconstrued as the Voice of CuringEthics & Behavior, 1992
- Diversity in the practice of district ethics committees.BMJ, 1989
- Ethics of clinical research: lessons for the future.BMJ, 1989
- The myth of informed consent: in daily practice and in clinical trials.Journal of Medical Ethics, 1989
- Privacy between physicians and patients: More than a matter of confidentialitySocial Science & Medicine, 1989