The Multidimensional Nature of Research Ethics: Letters Issued by a French Research Ethics Committee Included Similar Proportions of Ethical and Scientific Queries

IF 1.7 4区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics Pub Date : 2022-04-13 DOI:10.1177/15562646221093218

T. Haaser, V. Bouteloup, D. Berdaï, M. Saux

{"title":"The Multidimensional Nature of Research Ethics: Letters Issued by a French Research Ethics Committee Included Similar Proportions of Ethical and Scientific Queries","authors":"T. Haaser, V. Bouteloup, D. Berdaï, M. Saux","doi":"10.1177/15562646221093218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Debate is ongoing concerning the activities and functioning of Research Ethics Committees (REC), especially a possible science-or-ethics dichotomy in research ethics review. We retrospectively analyzed 145 letters issued by a French REC over 18 months. All queries were classified in three levels: qualification (definition of the problem), category (aggregation of broader topics) and finally fields (ethical, scientific, or administrative). Overall, 971 queries were identified, of which 407 (42%), 379 (39%), and 135 (14%) were deemed ethical, scientific, and administrative queries, respectively. The most frequent concern was about participants’ information. The main influencing factor was the profession of the reporting readers—scientific queries were more frequently raised by a methodologist, whereas ethical queries were more frequently raised by an ethicist. These results indicate that research ethics review is a multidimensional task that should be considered a collaborative effort.","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":"17 1","pages":"242 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221093218","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Debate is ongoing concerning the activities and functioning of Research Ethics Committees (REC), especially a possible science-or-ethics dichotomy in research ethics review. We retrospectively analyzed 145 letters issued by a French REC over 18 months. All queries were classified in three levels: qualification (definition of the problem), category (aggregation of broader topics) and finally fields (ethical, scientific, or administrative). Overall, 971 queries were identified, of which 407 (42%), 379 (39%), and 135 (14%) were deemed ethical, scientific, and administrative queries, respectively. The most frequent concern was about participants’ information. The main influencing factor was the profession of the reporting readers—scientific queries were more frequently raised by a methodologist, whereas ethical queries were more frequently raised by an ethicist. These results indicate that research ethics review is a multidimensional task that should be considered a collaborative effort.

查看原文本刊更多论文

研究伦理的多维性质:法国研究伦理委员会发布的信件包括相似比例的伦理和科学问题

关于研究伦理委员会（REC）的活动和运作，特别是研究伦理审查中可能存在的科学或伦理二分法，目前正在进行辩论。我们回顾性分析了法国REC在18个月内发出的145封信件。所有问题都分为三个级别：资格（问题的定义）、类别（更广泛主题的集合），最后是领域（伦理、科学或行政）。总体而言，共发现971个查询，其中407个（42%）、379个（39%）和135个（14%）分别被视为道德、科学和行政查询。最常见的问题是参与者的信息。主要的影响因素是报道读者的职业——科学问题更频繁地由方法学家提出，而伦理问题更经常地由伦理学家提出。这些结果表明，研究伦理审查是一项多层面的任务，应该被视为一项合作努力。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 医学-医学：伦理

CiteScore

3.50

自引率

7.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.