The Membership and Function of the Research Ethics Committee

Abstract

IntroductionIn a recent Research Ethics Review editorial [1] Roger Rawbone alludes to the importance of asking questions 1 , and the point is that hard thinking is needed to generate good understanding, eg as occurs with and after the development of a theory. After Harvey' s work showed that blood went through the lungs, it was easier to ask why it followed that path. Veblen' s growing of two questions from one [2] refers to the historical development of intellectual control; ie asking the right questions is not always easy. Talking about Harvey' s theory of the human heart, Miller says 'Things tend to look like what we know they are forand if we don't know what they do, we often find it hard to say how they look' [3]. What is the composition of the REC for? If one sees the question from the medical end of the spectrum, one might think a scientific analysis of the object would provide the answer. One may tend to overlook the political context and not see that the REC serves a political purpose. It is this one needs to see in order to start to understand the otherwise confusing aspects of the composition of research ethics committees. A scientific methodRawbone focuses on the researcher and the subject rather than on the political context of research, and approaches the puzzle with an analysis of the sorts of scientist and sorts of lay member involved. He refers to the technical specialist (TS) and the technical generalist (TG); and the specialist lay member (SL) and generalist lay member (GL). He then offers us definitions of these groups but the various definitions are not coherent. We find that the definitions of the TS and TG are relative to particular RECs rather than to individuals; whilst the SL is defined in terms of a particular study, and the GL in terms of membership of a REC. So from Rawbone' s account, a TS can be a TG; and the SL a GL; and the TS or the TG can be a SL. It may strike one that this difficulty is not caused by the object under investigation, but rather by the method of analysis.Rawbone' s chosen method of analysis is then used to answer the question of the proper membership of RECs. The SL, a member of 'the target group being researched' is taken as the appropriate model for the TS 'who has a direct interest in the subject matter of the research'. A difficulty here may be an assumption that the SL considers only practical matters in the research and not the accompanying ethical values; it seems that Rawbone' s definitions are guiding his analysis. But he tentatively concludes that 'a specialist peer review of the science should be divorced from the validation of the science from an ethical perspective'; his defined members have to have a role. His original method of analysis is leading him into a Procrustean treatment of the composition of RECs. The better approach is that the situated problem This paper focuses on the REC and its political context to clarify the process of ethical review. The examples initially considered are taken from a Research Ethics Review editorial to develop the...

Research Competence among Public Senior High Teachers of District 1 in Ifugao Province

“…The study employed quantitative research following the descriptive design. The instrument was adapted and modified from Mejia and Salcedo (2020) for the knowledge towards research (35 items); Caingcoy (2020) for the attitude (15 positives and seven negative statements); and a researcher-made for the skills (26 items) which were based from the knowledge indicators while the assessment (20 items-primary and 6 items-secondary) was adapted from the internet (Benzo et al, 2020;Danvers & Desai, 2008;Gray, 2020; The Open University, 2017) for the primary while the secondary was a researcher-made. The questionnaire containing the respondent's profile was evaluated, validated, and approved by the university tool validator before it was presented to the 64 volunteer participants with their profiles shown in Table 1.…”

Editorial

“…In this issue of the journal he concludes that 'the larger political relationships determine the membership and function of the research ethics committee. The REC is defined as the political mechanism for formally socialising medical research and its lay members as similarly socialising the REC' [2]. For Parker the distinction between expert and lay is a political distinction.…”

“…I might agree with Parker that 'the intellectual or practical importance of the REC' s ethical decision is that the research is politically acceptable' [2] but only where this is qualified as in Parker' s subsequent statement -'the work of RECs … is a following of established standards and methods to achieve what is seen in the wider politics as a correct or acceptable balance between medical research and the protection of the research subject'. Unfortunately 'politically accept-able' can be interpreted differently and this has been of particular concern for the NHS RECs who see a direct influence of national politics on their work which affects their reaching a 'correct or acceptable balance in the wider political context'.…”