Research ethics committees in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the United States

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this paper is to compare common features and variation in the work of research ethics committees (RECs) in Finland to three other countries – England, Canada, the United States of America (USA) – in the late 2000s.MethodsSeveral approaches and data sources were used, including semi- or unstructured interviews of experts, documents, previous reports, presentations in meetings and observations. A theoretical framework was created and data from various sources synthesized.ResultsIn Finland, RECs were regulated by a medical research law, whereas in the other countries many related laws and rules guided RECs; drug trials had specific additional rules. In England and the USA, there was a REC control body. In all countries, members were voluntary and included lay-persons, and payment arrangements varied. Patient protection was the main ethics criteria, but other criteria (research advancement, availability of results, payments, detailed fulfilment of legislation) varied. In all countries, RECs had been given administrative duties. Variations by country included the mandate, practical arrangements, handling of multi-site research, explicitness of proportionate handlings, judging scientific quality, time-limits for decisions, following of projects, role in institute protection, handling conflicts of interests, handling of projects without informed consent, and quality assurance research. The division of work between REC members and secretariats varied in checking of formalities. In England, quality assurance of REC work was thorough, fairly thorough in the USA, and not performed in Finland.ConclusionsThe work of RECs in the four countries varied notably. Various deficiencies in the system require action, for which international comparison can provide useful insights.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0078-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Research Ethics and Justice: The Case of Finland

“…Good examples are Elina Hemminki's studies, with collaborators, on Finnish attitudes toward biomedical research in general 116 and biobank research in particular, 117 ethics committee chairpersons' views on changing rules, 118 and similarities and differences in research governance in Finland, England, Canada, and the United States. 119 Justice enters these investigations by the choice of themes, which often have to do with the proper distribution of benefits, burdens, rights, and duties within healthcare delivery and biomedical research.…”

Ethical Considerations in Research and Medical Care of Menopause

“…Currently, the review of clinic protocols by the Research Ethics Committees (REC) is the key to the regulation of clinical research. The RECs have to comply with several requirements, such as (1) the minimum members is five; (2) membership must be diverse (by race, gender, cultural background, sensitivity to the problems of the community), with at least one scientist and one nonscientist [45];…”

Building health research systems: WHO is generating global perspectives, and who’s celebrating national successes?

“…Among them, an examination of ethics approval systems in various countries, which was generally positive about reforms in the system in England [10]; an account of how the NIHR has responded to the research needs of local government in the United Kingdom after responsibility for public health was transferred to it [11]; and an analysis of how an NIHR initiative to integrate research into the local healthcare system was successfully implemented in North West London [12]. …”