Davies H, Wells F, Czarkowski M
H Davies, National Research Ethics Service, 4-8 Maple Street, London W1T 5HD, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2009 Jun;35(6):382-3. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.027722.
Criticism of ethical review of research continues and research ethics committees (RECs) need to demonstrate that they are "fit for purpose" by meeting acknowledged standards of process, debate and outcome. This paper reports a workshop in Warsaw in April 2008, organised by the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice, on the problems of setting standards for RECs in the European Union. Representatives from 27 countries were invited; 16 were represented. Problems identified were the limited and variable resources, difficulties of setting standards for ethical debate and its outcomes and that REC members, as volunteers, may resent the imposition of standards. Other ways to set standards were discussed, including analysis of current multicentre review, collecting REC member reports for review, learning from appeals and feedback from applicants, and use of other regional and national meetings. The place of a central, national board or ethics committee was debated as was the need for collaborating with partners in other fields.
对研究伦理审查的批评仍在继续,研究伦理委员会(RECs)需要通过达到公认的程序、辩论和结果标准来证明其“符合目的”。本文报告了2008年4月在华沙由欧洲良好临床实践论坛组织的一次研讨会,该研讨会讨论了为欧盟的研究伦理委员会制定标准的问题。来自27个国家的代表受到邀请,16个国家有代表出席。确定的问题包括资源有限且各不相同、为伦理辩论及其结果制定标准存在困难,以及研究伦理委员会成员作为志愿者可能反感标准的强制实施。还讨论了制定标准的其他方法,包括对当前多中心审查的分析、收集研究伦理委员会成员的报告以供审查、从上诉和申请人反馈中学习,以及利用其他区域和国家会议。对设立一个中央、国家委员会或伦理委员会的地位进行了辩论,与其他领域的合作伙伴合作的必要性也进行了辩论。