“An Official Conscience and Warranting Agency”: Institutional Isomorphism and the Rise of Dutch Ethics Review in the 1970s and 1980s

N. Jacobs
{"title":"“An Official Conscience and Warranting Agency”: Institutional Isomorphism and the Rise of Dutch Ethics Review in the 1970s and 1980s","authors":"N. Jacobs","doi":"10.1163/26667711-bja10009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nWhy did medical research involving human subjects, a practice that is arguably as old as medicine itself, come to be regulated by research ethics committees in the late twentieth century? In this essay, I answer this question for the Netherlands, by querying the rise of ethics review in the 1970s and 1980s through the lens of “institutional isomorphism”. Drawing on the classic work of Paul Dimaggio and Walter Powell, I argue that extra-national changes to funding and publishing requirements in this period were identifiably more important for the emergence of ethics review in the Netherlands than were ethical concerns for research misconduct – a process that was marked by definitive elements of internationally coercive, and perhaps also of mimetic isomorphism. In addition, I detail how, as a consequence of these developments, those involved in Dutch ethics review came to consider “variation and inconsistency” as one of the system’s biggest problems in the late 1980s. To remedy this, numerous normative isomorphic attempts were undertaken in the late twentieth century to make all Dutch research ethics committees act in the same way. This emphasis on institutional homogeneity has been borne out in the Netherlands, even though it has repeatedly been criticized for hampering democratic and ethical decision-making.","PeriodicalId":72967,"journal":{"name":"European journal for the history of medicine and health","volume":"200 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal for the history of medicine and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26667711-bja10009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Why did medical research involving human subjects, a practice that is arguably as old as medicine itself, come to be regulated by research ethics committees in the late twentieth century? In this essay, I answer this question for the Netherlands, by querying the rise of ethics review in the 1970s and 1980s through the lens of “institutional isomorphism”. Drawing on the classic work of Paul Dimaggio and Walter Powell, I argue that extra-national changes to funding and publishing requirements in this period were identifiably more important for the emergence of ethics review in the Netherlands than were ethical concerns for research misconduct – a process that was marked by definitive elements of internationally coercive, and perhaps also of mimetic isomorphism. In addition, I detail how, as a consequence of these developments, those involved in Dutch ethics review came to consider “variation and inconsistency” as one of the system’s biggest problems in the late 1980s. To remedy this, numerous normative isomorphic attempts were undertaken in the late twentieth century to make all Dutch research ethics committees act in the same way. This emphasis on institutional homogeneity has been borne out in the Netherlands, even though it has repeatedly been criticized for hampering democratic and ethical decision-making.
“官方良心与担保机构”:制度同构与上世纪七八十年代荷兰伦理评论的兴起
为什么涉及人类受试者的医学研究,这种可以说和医学本身一样古老的做法,在20世纪后期开始受到研究伦理委员会的监管?在这篇文章中,我通过“制度同构”的视角,通过对20世纪70年代和80年代伦理审查兴起的质疑,为荷兰回答了这个问题。借鉴Paul Dimaggio和Walter Powell的经典著作,我认为在这一时期,国外对资助和出版要求的改变对荷兰伦理审查的出现比对研究不端行为的伦理关注更为重要——这一过程以国际强制的决定性因素为标志,也许还有模仿同构。此外,我还详细说明了,作为这些发展的结果,那些参与荷兰伦理审查的人是如何在20世纪80年代末将“变异和不一致”视为该系统的最大问题之一的。为了解决这个问题,20世纪后期进行了许多规范同构的尝试,以使所有荷兰研究伦理委员会以同样的方式行事。这种对制度同质性的强调在荷兰得到了证实,尽管它一再被批评为阻碍民主和道德决策。
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信