J de Champlain1, J Patenaude. 1. Centre de recherche clinique, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001 Twelfth Avenue North, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1H 5N4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine how research ethics boards (REBs) review research projects in emerging disciplines such as functional neuroimaging. DESIGN: To compare the criteria applied and the decisions reached by REBs that reviewed the same mock research protocol in functional neuroimaging. PARTICIPANTS: 44 Canadian biomedical REBs, mostly working in public university or hospital settings. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The mock research protocol "The Neurobiology of Social Behavior" included several ethical issues operating at all three levels: personal, institutional and social. Data consisting of responses to closed questions were analysed quantitatively. Qualitative analysis of open-question responses used mixed classification. RESULTS: Similar criteria were used by most participating REBs. Yet the project was unconditionally approved by 3 REBs, approved conditionally by 10 and rejected by 30. CONCLUSIONS: The results point to the difficulty for REBs of reviewing all kinds of research projects, regardless of field, by relying on international and national norms framed in general terms and a possible variation between REBs in the interpretation of their mandate for the protection of research subjects.
OBJECTIVE: To examine how research ethics boards (REBs) review research projects in emerging disciplines such as functional neuroimaging. DESIGN: To compare the criteria applied and the decisions reached by REBs that reviewed the same mock research protocol in functional neuroimaging. PARTICIPANTS: 44 Canadian biomedical REBs, mostly working in public university or hospital settings. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The mock research protocol "The Neurobiology of Social Behavior" included several ethical issues operating at all three levels: personal, institutional and social. Data consisting of responses to closed questions were analysed quantitatively. Qualitative analysis of open-question responses used mixed classification. RESULTS: Similar criteria were used by most participating REBs. Yet the project was unconditionally approved by 3 REBs, approved conditionally by 10 and rejected by 30. CONCLUSIONS: The results point to the difficulty for REBs of reviewing all kinds of research projects, regardless of field, by relying on international and national norms framed in general terms and a possible variation between REBs in the interpretation of their mandate for the protection of research subjects.
Authors: Vanessa K Noonan; Nancy P Thorogood; Phalgun B Joshi; Michael G Fehlings; B Catharine Craven; Gary Linassi; Daryl R Fourney; Brian K Kwon; Christopher S Bailey; Eve C Tsai; Brian M Drew; Henry Ahn; Deborah Tsui; Marcel F Dvorak Journal: Healthc Policy Date: 2013-05