Sheehan M
Program on the Ethics of the New Biosciences, Faculty of Philosophy and James Martin 21 Century School, University of Oxford, Littlegate House, 16/17 St Ebbes Street, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2008 Aug;34(8):631-5. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.022574.
Currently, research ethics committees (RECs) in the UK meet behind closed doors-their workings and most of the content of their decisions are unavailable to the general public. There is a significant tension between this current practice and a broader societal presumption of openness. As a form of public institution, the REC system exists to oversee research from the perspective of society generally. An important part of this tension turns on the kind of justification that might be offered for the REC system. In this paper I adapt Daniels and Sabin's accountability for reasonableness model for just resource allocation to the research ethics context to provide some structural legitimacy and to enable progress on the question of openness. After considering the consequences of adopting this model for open REC meetings, I then examine some reasons that might be offered against open meetings. These arguments do not overwhelm the core intuitions behind the presumption of openness but they do, I suggest, give us reason to retreat from fully public meetings. I conclude that there should be important adjustments to the system towards public accountability and that there are grounds for stopping short of fully public meetings.
目前，英国的研究伦理委员会（RECs）在闭门会议中进行运作——其工作过程以及大部分决策内容都不对公众公开。当前的这种做法与更广泛的社会公开推定之间存在着显著的矛盾。作为一种公共机构形式，RECs系统的存在是为了从社会总体角度监督研究。这种矛盾的一个重要方面在于可能为RECs系统提供的正当理由类型。在本文中，我将丹尼尔斯和萨宾的合理资源分配问责模型应用于研究伦理背景，以提供一些结构上的合法性，并推动关于公开性问题的进展。在考虑采用该模型对RECs公开会议的影响后，我接着审视一些可能反对公开会议的理由。这些论点并没有压倒公开推定背后的核心直觉，但我认为，它们确实让我们有理由不完全采用完全公开的会议形式。我得出结论，该系统应朝着公众问责制进行重要调整，并且有理由不采用完全公开的会议形式。
