Dataset Information

Evolution of Ethics in Clinical Research and Ethics Committee.

ABSTRACT: Ethics are the moral values of human behavior and the principles which govern these values. The situation becomes challenging for a doctor when he assumes the role of researcher. The doctor-researcher has to serve both the roles and at times the zeal of an investigator has the potential to cloud the morality of the physician inside. It is very important to realize that exploiting the faith of patients is an offence that tantamount to a crime. Medical science is one discipline where the advancement of knowledge is hugely guided by research and mankind has benefitted from many experiments. However benefit and risk are the two faces of the same coin. Various unethical human experiments made us realize that the whims of researchers need to be reined and led to the evolution of the first guidelines for researcher, the Nuremberg code. Thereafter the Good Clinical Practice guidelines serve as the guiding doctrine of clinical research. The principles of ethics rest on the four pillars of autonomy, beneficence, justice, non-maleficence and recently two more pillars are added which includes, confidentiality and honesty. Ethics committees serve as a guardian of these principles. The multidisciplinary Ethics Committee ensures a competent review of the ethical aspects of the project proposal submitted and does it free from any bias or external influence. Ethical review of clinical trial applications follows a decentralized process in India, and requires Ethics Committee approval for each trial site. All Ethics committees have to be registered with Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) without which they cannot approve any clinical trial protocol and has come into effect from 25th February 2013.

SUBMITTER: Das NK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5527717 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul-Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The general purpose for ethics consultations is to deliberate on issues on medical and scientific research and act towards the safeguard of the patient's rights and dignity. With the implementation of European Union (EU) Regulation 536/2014 on clinical trials and cost and time-optimization, the nature of consultations and the bodies they are carried out might be to some extent affected. Accordingly, we sought to gain an updated perspective on the current role and current practices of ethics consultations nationwide in both clinical and research settings. METHODS:The study was carried forth by a three-step mixed-method approach: i) review of policies/regulations for ethics committee (EC) nationwide; ii) a structured survey on ethics consultation activity completed by each EC during 2016; iii) incorporated into the third part, a qualitative assessment with a selected sample of 8 key-informants for a semi-structured interview, discussing EC history, the ethics consultation function, and the professional experience of consultants. RESULTS:Review of the policies/regulations promoted by ECs showed that 72,6% (n = 69) of all the ECs (N = 95) being actually capable of providing ethics consultation service by policy. 71 ECs (74.7%) responded to the survey on ethics consultation requests; among them, 48 (67.6%) provided ethics consultations of which 23 (23/48) actually received requests for this service in the year 2016. Many ECs did not have a structured database in place to provide precise figures of requests received in the last year nor of their contents. CONCLUSION:To date, ethics consultation in clinical and research practice is largely underappreciated and not well understood by users. The consultants themselves lack a comprehensive vision of work carried out in their field, and bioethics training programs to keep them updated. Despite clinical ethics consultation services should not necessarily be mandatory, following the recent EU Regulation on clinical trials, institutional ethics consultation bodies should be re-evaluated.

Project description:ObjectivesThe Plutocratic Proposal is a novel method of funding early phase clinical trials where a single donor funds the entire trial and in so doing secures a place on it. The aim of this study was to identify and explore concerns that may be raised by UK research ethics committees (RECs) when reviewing clinical trials funded in this way.DesignEmpirical ethics combining ethical analysis and qualitative data from three focus groups held online using Frith's symbiotic approach. Data were analysed using inductive thematic approach informed by the study aims and ethical analysis.Participants22 participants were recruited: 8 research patient public involvement group members, 7 REC chairs and 7 clinical researchers. All were based in the UK.ResultsWith one exception, participants thought the Plutocratic Proposal may be 'all things considered' acceptable, providing their concerns were met, primary of which was upholding scientific integrity. Other concerns discussed related to the acceptability of the donor securing a place on the trial including: whether this was an unfair distribution of benefits, disclosing the identity of the donor as the funder, protecting the donor from exploitation and funding a single study with multiple donors on the same terms. Some misgivings fell outside the usual REC purview: detrimental impact of donors of bad character, establishing the trustworthiness of the matching agency and its processes and optimising research funding and resources. Despite their concerns, participants recognised that because the donor funds the whole trial, others would also potentially benefit from participating.ConclusionsWe identified concerns about the Plutocratic Proposal. UK RECs may be open to approving studies if these can be addressed. Existing governance processes will do some of this work, but additional REC guidance, particularly in relation to donors securing a place on the trial, may be necessary to help RECs navigate ethical concerns consistently.

Project description:BackgroundWhen reviewing a protocol, research ethics committees (RECs, equivalent to institutional review boards - IRBs) have the responsibility to consider whether the proposed research is justified. If research is not justified, it can waste participants' time, researchers' time and resources. As RECs are not constituted to cover all areas of scientific or academic expertise, it can be difficult for RECs to decide whether research is scientifically or methodologically justified especially in the absence of authoritative (often in the form of systematic) reviews. Where such reviews are absent, some have argued that RECs should insist on a new review of existing evidence as a condition of the REC favourable opinion. However, as RECs review a wide range of research, such requests must be proportionate to the type, and extent, of proposed projects. Risk is one factor that may influence the extent of evidence need for a REC to determine that the new project is justified, but not the only factor. The aim of the work described here was to determine whether REC members and researchers specifically link risk to the type of research methodology, and if so, whether this link could be used to help guide the need for systematic, or other, types of reviews.MethodWe conducted a cross-sectional study, gathering data between November 2020 and January 2021, to examine whether proposed research methodologies impact how RECs perceive risk to participants. We presented 31 research methodologies to REC members and researchers in the form of an international survey.ResultsWe collected 283 responses that included both qualitative and quantitative data as to how research methodology impacts perceptions of risk to participants. We used the data to conclude that RECs did see a link between risk and type of research. We therefore constructed a hierarchy of risk with Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, and clinical psychology/psychiatry intervention studies, at the top (i.e. viewed as most risky).ConclusionsWe discuss whether this hierarchy is useful for guiding RECs as to the level of scientific justification that they should seek when reviewing proposed research protocols, and present a one-page guidance sheet to help RECs during their reviews.

Dataset Information

Evolution of Ethics in Clinical Research and Ethics Committee.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets