Epistemic Strategies in Ethical Review: REB Members’ Experiences of Assessing Probable Impacts of Research for Human Subjects

Research ethics boards (REBs) are charged with applying ethical standards to protect the rights and interests of research subjects. Little, however, is known about how REB members perceive probable impacts of research participation for subjects. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 40 Canadian REB members, we identify three frequently reported epistemic strategies, including reliance on a local REB culture or ethos, use of resident authorities, and protective imagination. Far less commonly described strategies included direct or indirect contact with research subjects. REB members also reflected upon significant gaps in their knowledge and thus the importance of knowing what we don’t know. Recommendations arising from this support an evidence-based practice for ethics review involving clear epistemic standards for REBs learning about subjects’ experiences.

Research Ethics Committees’ Oversight of Biomedical Research in South Africa: A Thematic Analysis of Ethical Issues Raised During Ethics Review of Non-Expedited Protocols

In South Africa, biomedical research cannot commence until it has been reviewed and approved by a local research ethics committee (REC). There remains a dearth of empirical data on the nature and frequency of ethical issues raised by such committees. This study sought to identify ethical concerns typically raised by two South African RECs. Meeting minutes for 180 protocols reviewed between 2009 and 2014 were coded and analyzed using a preexisting framework. Results showed that the most frequent queries involved informed consent, respect for participants, and scientific validity. Interestingly, administrative issues (non-ethical) such as missing researchers’ CVs and financial contracts emerged more frequently than ethical questions such as favorable risk/benefit ratio and fair participant selection. Although not generalizable to all RECs, our data provide insights into two South African RECs’ review concerns. More education and awareness of the actual ethical issues typically raised by such committees might help improve review outcomes and relationships between researchers and RECs.

Biomedical Research Ethics Committees in sub-Saharan Africa: a collective review of their structure, functioning, and outcomes

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are mandated to protect human participants by conducting ethical reviews of biomedical research. To date, there is a dearth of information on the structure, functioning, and outcomes of RECs in Africa. This article reviews empirical studies investigating African RECs, with the aim of providing an overview of what is known and identifying gaps in our knowledge. We conducted a literature search of the EBSCO, PubMed, and Google Scholar electronic databases. Twenty-three empirical studies reporting on the structure, functions, and outcomes of African RECs were included in our analysis. The review yielded limited systematic data on RECs in Africa. Available empirical evidence suggests that challenges hampering the effective functioning of RECs included lack of membership diversity, scarcity of resources, insufficient training of members, inadequate capacity to review and monitor studies, and lack of national ethics guidelines and accreditation. Relatively little data on the review outcomes of African RECs were described. There is an ongoing need for concerted efforts from various stakeholders to support capacity development and enhancement of African RECs.