Suchergebnisse

Considerable time and resources are invested in the ethics review process. We present qualitative data on how human research ethics committee members and health researchers perceive the role and function of the committee. The findings are based on interviews with 34 Australian ethics committee members and 54 health researchers. Although all participants agreed that the primary role of the ethics committee was to protect participants, there was disagreement regarding the additional roles undertaken by committees. Of particular concern were the perceptions from some ethics committee members and researchers that ethics committees were working to protect the institution's interests, as well as being over-protective toward research participants. This has the potential to lead to poor relations and mistrust between ethics committees and researchers.

Whereas investigators have directed considerable criticism against Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), the desirable characteristics of IRBs have not previously been empirically determined. A sample of 886 experienced biomedical and social and behavioral scientists rated 45 descriptors of IRB actions and functions as to their importance. Predictions derived from organizational justice research findings in other work settings were generally borne out. Investigators place high value on the fairness and respectful consideration of their IRBs. Expected differences between biomedical and social behavioral researchers and other variables were unfounded. Recommendations are offered for educating IRBs to accord researchers greater respect and fair treatment.

Italy has recently introduced regulations that profoundly change the arrangement of ethics committees. Specifically, their numbers have been reduced from more than 200 to a few dozen.The decree defining the criteria for their composition and functioning includes regulations intended to improve efficiency and efficacy. The present article provides a brief overview of the new provisions and identifies some critical aspects.

With the recent Clinical Trials Directive, a degree of harmonisation into research ethics committees (RECs) across Europe, including the time taken to assess a trial proposal and the kinds of issues a committee should take into account, has been introduced by the European Union (EU). How four different member states—Hungary, Portugal, Sweden and the UK—have chosen to implement the directive is shown. Although this has resulted in four very different ways of structuring RECs, similar themes are present in all four cases, such as centralisation of control over RECs within member states, harmonisation of REC procedures across the EU and increased role of political decision making with regard to such committees.

Background Rationing and allocation decisions at the clinical level – bedside rationing – entail complex dilemmas that clinicians and managers often find difficult to handle. There is a lack of mechanisms and aids for promoting fair decisions, especially in hard cases. Reports indicate that clinical ethics committees (CECs) sometimes handle cases that involve bedside rationing dilemmas. Can CECs have a legitimate role to play in bedside rationing? Main text Aided by two frameworks for legitimate priority setting, we discuss how CECs can contribute to enhanced epistemic, procedural and political legitimacy in bedside rationing decisions. Drawing on previous work we present brief case vignettes and outline several potential roles that CECs may play, and then discuss whether these might contribute to rationing decisions becoming legitimate. In the process, key prerequisites for such legitimacy are identified. Legitimacy places demands on aspects such as the CEC's deliberation process, the involvement of stakeholders, transparency of process, the opportunity to appeal decisions, and the competence of CEC members. On these conditions, CECs can help strengthen the legitimacy of some of the rationing decisions clinicians and managers have to make. Conclusions On specified conditions, CECs can have a well-justified advisory role to play in order to enhance the legitimacy of bedside rationing decisions.

Introduction and objectives. Coinciding with the recent implementation in Italy of the "Directive 2010/63/EU, regarding the protection of animals used for scientific pur-poses", the Authors would like to analyse the topic of the introduction of ethical com-mittees for animal experimentation in Italy. This paper furthermore aims to underline some critical aspects concerning the actions taken by Italian institutions to comply with the provisions of EU.Results and discussion. The implementation of the recent Italian law (Decreto Legisla-tivo n. 26 on 4 March 2014 Implementation of the Directive 2010/63/EU on the protec-tion of animals used for scientific purposes) leans towards a restrictive interpretation of the European provisions about composition and responsibilities of "Ethical Committee for Animal Experimentation". In the composition of the bodies mentioned, we note a tendency to restrict the composition to few professional figures contemplated by Ital-ian law, without guaranteeing the independence of each committee; also, an absence of hierarchical relationship between a research institution and his committee is apparent. Moreover, a critical aspect is the lack of decision-making powers of these new organisms in terms of ethical evaluation of protocols and research projects.Conclusions. What EU legislation imposes on the member states is to set up an animal-welfare body (art. 26). This represents a strong incentive for Italy to follow the steps of many other European Countries, where ad hoc ethical committees have been working for a long time. The proper functioning of these bodies may contribute to guarantee the safety and welfare of the animals inside the laboratories, and to balance the protection of animal life and the interests of research.

Regulatory guidelines leave determination of coercion and undue influence of research participants open to interpretation. A web-based survey was conducted of the research ethics committees members at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) to evaluate their perspectives on paying participants in clinical research via general questions, as well as 8 short cases involving hypertension placebo-controlled trials, a pilot exercise study, a survey of substance abusers, a healthy-volunteer pharmacokinetic study, a twin study involving DNA samples, and an asthma medication study in children. Research ethics committee members were asked to state what payment they would consider appropriate for a given type of protocol. The results suggest that risk, time required, reimbursement for expenses, and inconvenience were important in determining appropriate payment, while income and funding source were not. The case studies revealed wide variation in recommended payments both within type of study and between studies.