Glass Kathleen Cranley, Kaufert Joseph
McGill University (Canada).
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2007 Jun;2(2):25-40. doi: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.2.25.
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEES (RECs) are heavily influenced by the established academic or health care institutional frameworks in which they operate, sharing a cultural, methodological and ethical perspective on the conduct of research involving humans. The principle of autonomous choice carries great weight in what is a highly individualistic decision-making process in medical practice and research. This assumes that the best protection lies in the ability of patients or research participants to make competent, voluntary, informed choices, evaluating the risks and benefits from a personal perspective. Over the past two decades, North American and international indigenous researchers, policy makers and communities have identified key issues of relevance to them, but ignored by most institutional or university-based RECs. They critique the current research review structure, and propose changes on a variety of levels in an attempt to develop more community sensitive research ethics review processes. In doing so, they have emphasized recognition of collective rights including community consent. Critics see alternative policy guidelines and community-based review bodies as challenging the current system of ethics review. Some view them as reflecting a fundamental difference in values. In this paper, we explore these developments in the context of the political, legal and ethical frameworks that have informed REC review. We examine the process and content of these frameworks and ask how this contrasts with emerging Aboriginal proposals for community-based research ethics review. We follow this with recommendations on how current REC review models might accommodate the requirements of both communities and RECs.
当代研究伦理审查委员会(RECs)深受其所处的既定学术或医疗保健机构框架的影响,在涉及人类研究的开展方面,它们有着共同的文化、方法和伦理视角。自主选择原则在医疗实践和研究中高度个人主义的决策过程中具有重要分量。这假定最佳保护在于患者或研究参与者有能力做出明智、自愿、知情的选择,从个人角度评估风险和益处。在过去二十年里,北美和国际上的本土研究人员、政策制定者及社区已经确定了与他们相关但被大多数机构或大学的伦理审查委员会忽视的关键问题。他们批评当前的研究审查结构,并在多个层面提出变革建议,试图建立更具社区敏感性的研究伦理审查流程。在此过程中,他们强调对集体权利的认可,包括社区同意。批评者认为替代性政策指南和基于社区的审查机构对当前的伦理审查体系构成了挑战。一些人认为它们反映了价值观上的根本差异。在本文中,我们在为伦理审查委员会审查提供依据的政治、法律和伦理框架背景下探讨这些发展情况。我们审视这些框架的过程和内容,并询问这与原住民提出的基于社区的研究伦理审查新提议有何不同。在此之后,我们就当前的伦理审查委员会审查模式如何兼顾社区和伦理审查委员会的要求提出建议。