Accountability in Research Policies and Quality Assurance
ISSN: 0898-9621 (Print) 1545-5815 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gacr20
Research Ethics Committee: Dominance and Accountability Beuy Joob M.D. & Viroj Wiwanitkit M.D. To cite this article: Beuy Joob M.D. & Viroj Wiwanitkit M.D. (2015) Research Ethics Committee: Dominance and Accountability, Accountability in Research, 22:5, 301-302, DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2014.956864 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.956864
Published online: 30 Apr 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 73
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gacr20 Download by: [NUS National University of Singapore]
Date: 05 November 2015, At: 17:11
Accountability in Research, 22:301–302, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0898-9621 print / 1545-5815 online DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2014.956864
Research Ethics Committee: Dominance and Accountability Accountability in Research 2015.22:301-302.
Beuy Joob, M.D.1 and Viroj Wiwanitkit, M.D.2 1 2
Sanitation 1 Medical Academic Center, Bangkok, Thailand Faculty of Medicine, University of Nis, Nis, Serbia
Sir, the recent report entitled “Medical Dominance within Research Ethics Committees” is very interesting (Humphreys et al., 2014). Humphreys et al. noted for influence of the medical profession in shaping ethics review (Humphreys et al., 2014). The theory of Freidson can be well used for explaining the observation (Coburn, 1992). In fact, dominance is not a problem. However, the problem can be expected in case of overacting (Guillemin et al., 2012). “Poor relations and mistrust between ethics committees and researchers” are important issues to be addressed (Guillemin et al., 2012, p. 38). Bias and double standardization that might relate to the dominance can be the big problem. In the present day, the important consideration is the lack of a good system to check the accountability of the Research Ethics Committees. International regulation of ethical committee is required and should be the topic for further discussion (de Lecuona, 2013).
REFERENCES Coburn, D. (1992). Freidson then and now: An “internalist” critique of Freidson’s past and present views of the medical profession. Int. J. Health Serv., 22:497–512. de Lecuona, I. (2013). International regulation of ethics committees on biomedical research as protection mechanisms for people: Analysis of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Biomedical Research of the Council of Europe. Rev. Derecho. Genoma Hum., 38:71–123. Address correspondence to Beuy Joob, Sanitation 1 Medical Academic Center, Bangkok Thailand. E-mail: [email protected]
302
B. Joob and V. Wiwanitkit Guillemin, M., Gillam, L., Rosenthal, D., and Bolitho, A. (2012). Human research ethics committees: Examining their roles and practices. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics, 7:38–49.
Accountability in Research 2015.22:301-302.
Humphreys, S., Thomas, H., and Martin, R. (2014). Medical dominance within research ethics committees. Account. Res., 21:366–388.
ISSN: 0898-9621 (Print) 1545-5815 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gacr20
Research Ethics Committee: Dominance and Accountability Beuy Joob M.D. & Viroj Wiwanitkit M.D. To cite this article: Beuy Joob M.D. & Viroj Wiwanitkit M.D. (2015) Research Ethics Committee: Dominance and Accountability, Accountability in Research, 22:5, 301-302, DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2014.956864 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.956864
Published online: 30 Apr 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 73
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gacr20 Download by: [NUS National University of Singapore]
Date: 05 November 2015, At: 17:11
Accountability in Research, 22:301–302, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0898-9621 print / 1545-5815 online DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2014.956864
Research Ethics Committee: Dominance and Accountability Accountability in Research 2015.22:301-302.
Beuy Joob, M.D.1 and Viroj Wiwanitkit, M.D.2 1 2
Sanitation 1 Medical Academic Center, Bangkok, Thailand Faculty of Medicine, University of Nis, Nis, Serbia
Sir, the recent report entitled “Medical Dominance within Research Ethics Committees” is very interesting (Humphreys et al., 2014). Humphreys et al. noted for influence of the medical profession in shaping ethics review (Humphreys et al., 2014). The theory of Freidson can be well used for explaining the observation (Coburn, 1992). In fact, dominance is not a problem. However, the problem can be expected in case of overacting (Guillemin et al., 2012). “Poor relations and mistrust between ethics committees and researchers” are important issues to be addressed (Guillemin et al., 2012, p. 38). Bias and double standardization that might relate to the dominance can be the big problem. In the present day, the important consideration is the lack of a good system to check the accountability of the Research Ethics Committees. International regulation of ethical committee is required and should be the topic for further discussion (de Lecuona, 2013).
REFERENCES Coburn, D. (1992). Freidson then and now: An “internalist” critique of Freidson’s past and present views of the medical profession. Int. J. Health Serv., 22:497–512. de Lecuona, I. (2013). International regulation of ethics committees on biomedical research as protection mechanisms for people: Analysis of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Biomedical Research of the Council of Europe. Rev. Derecho. Genoma Hum., 38:71–123. Address correspondence to Beuy Joob, Sanitation 1 Medical Academic Center, Bangkok Thailand. E-mail: [email protected]
302
B. Joob and V. Wiwanitkit Guillemin, M., Gillam, L., Rosenthal, D., and Bolitho, A. (2012). Human research ethics committees: Examining their roles and practices. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics, 7:38–49.
Accountability in Research 2015.22:301-302.
Humphreys, S., Thomas, H., and Martin, R. (2014). Medical dominance within research ethics committees. Account. Res., 21:366–388.
